SC6 EAG Report 2018-2020

Expert Advisory Group recommendations
on 2018-2020 Work Programme

Horizon 2020: Societal Challenge 6
Europe in a changing world
Inclusive, innovative and reflective societies
Expert Advisory Group recommendations

on 2018-2020 Work Programme
Horizon 2020: Societal Challenge 6

Europe in a changing world
Inclusive, innovative and reflective societies
Scope, process and acknowledgements

For the implementation of Horizon 2020 - the European Union Framework Programme for
Research and Innovation - account shall be taken of advice and inputs provided by
independent advisory groups of high level experts set up by the Commission from a broad
constituency of stakeholders, including research, industry and civil society, to provide the
necessary inter-disciplinary and cross-sectoral perspectives, taking account of relevant
existing initiatives at Union, national and regional level' (art. 12 of Horizon 2020 Regulation).
The European Commission has therefore established an Expert Advisory Group (EAG)
composed of 28 persons (see complete list in Annex) for providing recommendations on the
2018-2020 work programme of Societal Challenge 6 Europe in a changing world Inclusive,
Innovative and Reflective Societies (SC6)1. The Expert Advisory Group (EAG) has been tasked
with providing advice on relevant objectives and scientific, technological and innovation
priorities pertaining to all activities within SC6.
This report complements but also somehow transcend the previous report of the EAG entitled
"Resilient Europe" that provided advice for work programme 2016-172.
Ahead of the finalization of this report, the EAG had three meetings in Brussels on 17
February, 21 April and 19 May 2016. The report was finalized and sent to the European
Commission on 31 May 2016.
At the first meeting, Ms Kerstin Sahlin was elected by the group as Chair, Mr David Arnold as
Vice-Chair and Mr Jeremy Millard as Rapporteur. The Board had the task to coordinate the
work of the EAG by chairing the meetings, to unleash the collective intelligence of the group
and to manage the process by assembling and synthetizing the large amount of written and
oral comments from all the members.
The result of this work is presented in this report. The European Commission (DG RTD and DG
CNECT) acknowledges and thanks all the EAG members and especially the Board for their
excellent contribution.
http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupDetail&groupID=2951&NewSearch=1&New
Search=1
2
http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/sites/horizon2020/files/SC6-Advisory-Group%20report%20for%2020162017.pdf
CONTENTS
Executive summary ........................................................................................................... 1
1.
Introduction............................................................................................................... 5
1.1.
1.2.
2.
Purpose of the report from the SC6 Expert Advisory Group ............................................. 5
Research and innovation for SC6 .................................................................................... 5
Migration ................................................................................................................... 8
2.1. Lessons of the past ........................................................................................................ 8
2.2. Understanding human mobility ...................................................................................... 9
2.3. Migration drivers and dynamics ..................................................................................... 9
2.3.1.
Drivers of migration ...................................................................................................... 10
2.3.2.
Migration dynamics ....................................................................................................... 10
2.4. Cultural and integration research ................................................................................. 13
2.4.1.
The culture of migrant communities ............................................................................. 14
2.4.2.
The culture of the receiving society .............................................................................. 15
2.4.3.
Teaching to integrate .................................................................................................... 16
2.5. Impacts of migration.................................................................................................... 17
2.6. Cross-cutting issues ..................................................................................................... 18
2.6.1.
Gender ........................................................................................................................... 18
2.6.2.
Ethics and values ........................................................................................................... 19
2.6.3.
Digital............................................................................................................................. 19
2.6.4.
Sustainable development .............................................................................................. 20
2.6.5.
Europe in the world and international collaboration.................................................... 20
3.
The human and social dynamics of the Fourth Industrial Revolution ......................... 21
3.1. Understanding the societal context of technological and economic development.......... 21
3.2. Historical perspectives ................................................................................................. 23
3.3. Drivers and dynamics................................................................................................... 23
3.3.1.
The Fourth Industrial Revolution and the policy background ....................................... 23
3.3.2.
Societal challenges and impacts .................................................................................... 24
3.3.3.
The creative industries and cultural heritage................................................................ 26
3.3.4.
European cultural heritage as a driver of technical innovation .................................... 27
3.4. Ensuring risks and benefits are well distributed ............................................................ 28
3.4.1.
Growth and employment .............................................................................................. 28
3.4.2.
Industrial structure and externalities ............................................................................ 29
3.4.3.
Negative and positive outcomes ................................................................................... 30
3.5.1.
Gender ........................................................................................................................... 32
3.5.2.
3.5.3.
Digital............................................................................................................................. 33
3.5.4.
3.5.5.
4.
Governance for the future ........................................................................................ 35

4.1. Understanding governance for the future..................................................................... 35
4.2. Historical perspectives ................................................................................................. 36
4.3. European governance challenges and opportunities ..................................................... 38
4.3.1.
Trust, trustworthiness and legitimacy ........................................................................... 38
4.3.2.
New challenges and opportunities for policy- and decision-making ............................ 40
4.3.3.
Radicalisation and terrorism ......................................................................................... 41
4.3.4.
Legal and regulatory frameworks.................................................................................. 41
4.4. The digital transformation of governance ..................................................................... 42
4.4.1.
How ICT can change governance................................................................................... 42
4.4.2.
ICT-enabled public sector and open governance .......................................................... 42
4.5. Changing roles and relationships in European governance ............................................ 46
4.6.1.
Gender ........................................................................................................................... 47
4.6.2.
4.6.3.
Digital............................................................................................................................. 48
4.6.4.
4.6.5.
5.
Cross-cutting issues and synergies ............................................................................ 50

5.1.
5.2.
5.3.
5.4.
5.5.
6.
Gender ........................................................................................................................ 50
Ethics and values ......................................................................................................... 51
Digital ......................................................................................................................... 51
Sustainable development ............................................................................................ 52
Europe in the world and international collaboration ..................................................... 53
Annex: Members of the H2020 SC6 Expert Advisory Group ....................................... 54
Executive summary
The rationale and objective of Societal Challenge 6 (SC6) is to foster greater understanding of a
culturally and socially rich and diverse Europe and how it needs to adopt new paradigms for
change in a context of unprecedented transformations amid growing global interdependence.
Although the challenges are great, so too are the opportunities to turn these into European
strengths through European diversity and creativity across all areas of the economy, society,
culture and governance. SC6 is a core component of the research, innovation and
technological development actions foreseen within Horizon 2020 in responding to these
challenges to promote sustainable development and to address peoples concerns about their
livelihoods, safety and social cohesion.
The SC6 Expert Advisory Group has been asked to provide advice on relevant scientific,
technological and innovation priorities pertaining to all activities within SC6 for the H2020
Work Programme 2018-20. This report contains their full consensual recommendations on the
three major themes: migration; the human and social dynamics of the Fourth Industrial
Revolution; and governance for the future. In addition, five cross-cutting issues are identified
and recommendations are offered concerning the types of research and innovation to be
carried out, as shown in the diagram.
Research and innovation for SC6

The nature of Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) requires a strong prioritisation of
systematic, inclusive, inter-disciplinary, cross-national and rigorous comparative analyses to
assist in identifying the factors shaping current social, cultural, economic and environmental
dynamics. There is the need for a continued focus on ICT as the critical infrastructure and to
handle increasingly large data sets in both SSH research and innovation. In addition,
supplementary research and innovation approaches are recommended where appropriate:
Participatory research and innovation

Rapid reaction research and innovation
Modelling and improving the relationship between research, innovation and policy
Use-inspired basic research.
A strong emphasis on international cooperation in the context of SC6 is required, given that
such collaboration is necessary for Europe to successfully address the serious challenges it
faces, and as an essential building block of the European Research Area. There is also a need to
build on existing approaches deployed in SC6 by rethinking some of the ways research and
innovation are undertaken, such as:
A continuing focus on social innovation but also developing this to encompass both
inclusive and frugal innovation, as well as inclusive business approaches.
Design thinking and behavioural approaches.
Institutional innovation.
The potential of radical innovations as unanticipated, game-changing answers to
address complex and interdisciplinary societal challenges, and seen in contrast to
incremental innovation.
Three major themes have been identified
Migration
Modern European society is the product of millennia of migrations both inwards and outwards
and this process continues. Current migration challenges and opportunities need to be
considered in this light as the most recent examples of the processes that have created the
communities in which Europeans live and work. Understanding migration within, to and from
Europe must recognise that the world is interconnected, transnational and constantly
changing, and that this results in many different and interrelated - forms of human mobility.
European societies in particular can be characterised as hybrids, and processes of change,
partly following from migration, as hybridisation. Research and innovation should explore how
policy makers and practitioners can design effective and sustainable migration interventions.
Specifically, research and innovation actions should focus on:
The lessons of the past, given that the current wave of migration into Europe has
numerous historical antecedents, so that understanding these better will equip Europe
in developing effective solutions for the future.
Understanding human mobility and migration drivers and dynamics, given that these
are complex and ever changing in terms of the groups involved, their locational origins,
migration pathways and receiving societies.
Cultural and integration research to examine the cultures of both migrant
communities and of the receiving societies, which will also enable better interventions
to be designed, for example for teaching to foster integration.
The impacts of migration in order to unpack the often media-driven negative public
debates in Europe, to examine actual negative and positive impacts and place these
in the broader European as well as international context.
The human and social dynamics of the Fourth Industrial Revolution

The term Fourth Industrial Revolution, although widely used, needs careful unpacking in an
SSH context. The Expert Advisory Group recognises this latest socio-technological paradigm
shift enabled by ICT as a general purpose technology for many new technology breakthroughs
having potentially profound economic, social, cultural and environmental impacts. For
example, the potential blurring of lines between the physical, digital and biological spheres.
The pace, scale and scope of change presaged is argued to be unprecedented, even in
comparison to previous industrial revolutions. They touch upon virtually every aspect of
modern living, and in particular already seem to be having profound impacts on human and
social behaviour, the lived experience of being in work, and how society is organised.
Historical perspectives so that lessons learnt during previous industrial revolutions can
provide evidence for policy makers and practitioners to develop effective solutions for
the future that recognise the human and social needs of people.
The drivers and dynamics of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, its policy background,
governance implications and its societal challenges and impacts.
The creative industries and cultural heritage, including as a driver of technical
innovation.
Ensuring that risks and benefits are widely distributed and shared, in relation to
growth and employment, industrial structure and externalities, and negative and
positive outcomes.
Governance for the future

Governance in Europe, not least in relation to migration and the ushering in of the Fourth
Industrial Revolution, is at a crossroads. This can be seen in terms, for example, of democracy,
the need to balance short-term efficiency with long-term effectiveness, multi-level governance
arrangements, Europes international roles and relationships, public value, and the tensions
between harmonisation and heterogeneity. Europe is being buffeted by both internal and
external forces, and the political system is under severe strain. SSH research is necessary to
assist in both understanding why Europe finds itself in this situation, as well as to point to
evidence-based policies that are also ethical and just.
An investigation and analysis of lessons that can be learnt from the evolution of
European governance at all levels in order to develop a more resilient Europe for the
future, for example in relation to identity, diversity and culture.
European governance challenges and opportunities, with a focus on trust,
trustworthiness and legitimacy, radicalisation and terrorism, policy- and decisionmaking, as well as legal and regulatory frameworks.
The digital transformation of governance, given that the application of ICT and related
new technologies has changed the way the public sector and the wider issues of
governance operates and is structured. Even more profound impacts can be expected
in the future, not least because of the challenges and opportunities occasioned by the
Fourth Industrial Revolution.
ICT-enabled public sector innovation and open governance, as these are central tenets
of new forms of governance being pursued by most Member States and at European
level. In particular, there are three priority research and innovation needs: the open
government setting; government as a platform; and the likely impacts and take up of
emerging technologies.
The changing roles and relationships of European governance to meet the challenges
of tensions between plurality, stability and change, and the acceptance that
government itself does not have a monopoly on the innovations required to address
Europes societal challenges. Instead, government needs to improve and extend its
collaboration with other societal actors, as well as with other governments and
societies outside Europe.
Five cross-cutting issues

The following five issues cut across all the research and innovation recommendations made
above.
Gender: The framing of gender in H2020 needs to be

both
sharpened
and
strengthened as a dynamic concept which puts researchers at the forefront of
questioning gender norms and stereotypes, and addresses the evolving needs and
social roles of women and men. Depending on the field of research, it entails an
analysis of gender, sex or both.
Ethics and values: These are fundamental issues across all H2020 research and
innovation actions, for which SSH has specific responsibility to ensure they are both
recognised and acted upon. It is important to strengthen and adapt European
fundamental rights and values, as well as its responses to different types of inequality.
These need to be related to Europes social economic model, and it is important to
ensure that European ethical principles are embedded in all aspects of research and
innovation.
Digital: H2020 supports innovation, research and technological development, with the
latter focused on digital technologies in the form of ICT and on the new technologies
of the Fourth Industrial Revolution that ICT underpins. In this context, an important
role of SC6 is to ensure that SSH is present at all stages of the research and innovation
chain with a focus on value creation and accelerating the development of technologies
for innovative products, processes and services where ICT is the critical enabler.
Sustainable development: As key cross-cutting H2020 objectives, climate action and
sustainable development are also relevant to SC6, which can contribute to combatting
and mitigating climate change by integrating climate action into specific policy
activities, developing capacity, and strengthening the regulatory and policy framework.
In terms of the broader scope of sustainable development, Europes medium and
longer-term objectives align well with the UNs Sustainable Development Goals, 20162030. These provide the guiding principle for balanced long-term global development
consisting of the three pillars of economic development, social development and
environmental protection, so that if any one pillar is weak then the system as a whole
is unsustainable
Europe in the world and international collaboration: Europe requires in-depth and
cutting edge knowledge concerning developments elsewhere in the world in order to
be a dynamic actor and ensure its input to the changing international order. This is
necessary both in order to project European influence and soft power, but also for
mutual learning given that most societal challenges are global in extent and require
international collaboration.
1.
Introduction
1.1.
Purpose of the report from the SC6 Expert Advisory Group
The rationale and objective of Societal Challenge 6 (SC6) is to foster greater understanding of a
culturally and socially rich and diverse Europe and how it needs to adopt new paradigms for
change in a context of unprecedented transformations amid growing global interdependence.
Although the challenges are great, so too are the opportunities to turn these into European
strengths through European diversity and creativity across all areas of the economy, society,
culture and governance. Innovative policies and actions are thus required to provide new
solutions in support of a Europe which is inclusive, innovative and reflective. SC6 is itself a core
component of the research, innovation and technological development actions foreseen
within Horizon 2020 in responding to these challenges to promote sustainable development
and to address peoples concerns about their livelihoods, safety and social cohesion.
The SC6 Expert Advisory Group has been asked to provide advice on relevant scientific,
technological and innovation priorities pertaining to all activities within SC6. Three major
research, innovation and technological development themes are presented in this report:
migration; the human and social dynamics of the Fourth Industrial Revolution; and governance
for the future. In addition, five cross-cutting issues are identified: gender; ethics and values;
digital; sustainable development; and Europe in the world and international cooperation. The
contents of the report are designed as high-level expert recommendations for the next H2020
Work Programme 2018-20, and represent the full consensual view of the Expert Advisory
Group. They build on and exploit work in relevant areas undertaken earlier in H2020 as well as
in previous Framework Programmes, and are also linked to work envisaged under other
Societal Challenges and with other significant European policies and actions.
1.2.
Research and innovation for SC6
An adequate understanding of how both European societies in particular, as well as human

societies more generally, are structured and function is of utmost importance as this underpins
all aspects of economic, social and environmental development and sustainability. Thus, there
is a need for research, innovation and technology development that increase our knowledge
about the current and historical developments of European societies and that directly
develops solutions for the future.
In the context of H2020, the nature of Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) requires a strong
prioritisation of systematic, inclusive, inter-disciplinary, cross-national and rigorous
comparative analyses to assist in identifying the factors shaping current social, cultural,
economic and environmental dynamics. This is needed to develop models, theories and
explanatory typologies and, in turn, to inform policy makers and practitioners. This includes a
continued focus on ICT as the critical infrastructure and the need to handle increasingly large
data sets in both SSH research and innovation. It is also important that SC6 contributes
significantly to all stages of the research and innovation chain, as well as how these create
value for European societies by supporting an acceleration of both existing as well as future
and emerging technologies which can create products, processes and services for innovative
solutions to meet the requirements of the Europe 2020 Strategy. As part of this, it is
recommended that SC6 research and innovation undertakes, where appropriate3:
Participatory research and innovation, for example in the context of migration,
employment studies, the use of new technologies, governance issues, etc. This is
important for scientific rigour given the need to understand and foreground the
motivations, behaviours and experiences of different societal actors. It is also ethically
important, as a way of empowering all such actors by enabling them to co-produce
research and innovation and feed into policy recommendations.
Rapid reaction research and innovation that is responsive to real-time policy needs.
Two dimensions are particularly important: the opportunity for policy-makers to help
identify and shape research questions based on their on-going data and analysis
needs; and the possibility of more flexible procedures for commissioning research and
innovation on a rapid basis.
The relationship between research, innovation and policy, for example by examining
and modelling their relationship, including the range of different impacts and how
research and innovation can be used as scientific knowledge, data and evidence, and
the conditions promoting the successful exchange of knowledge. This also has deep
implications for the future of governance at every level and not only in H2020.
Use-inspired basic research which recognises that the involvement of professionals
from specific application areas enables those domains to benefit more rapidly from
technological or other innovations as they mature and the innovations are likely more
quickly to find real application and markets4.
A re-emphasis of international cooperation, both within and beyond Europe, in the context of
SC6 is required, especially given that this has in practice been less important in the early period
of H2020 compared to FP7, and because such collaboration is an essential building block of the
European Research Area. Given the complexity of the societal challenges faced by Europe,
there is also a need to build on existing approaches deployed in SC6 by rethinking some of the
ways research and innovation are undertaken. A number of avenues need to be explored
which in particular focus on new forms of policies, developments and innovations that can
enhance fairness and inclusion in Europe, including through inclusive innovation and inclusive
business models.
First, social, inclusive and frugal innovation. Research and innovation should focus on new
types of model that aim to distribute benefits as widely as possible across society, for example
by building on existing work developing social-business models and examining particular types
of open innovation such as inclusive and frugal innovation. Having successfully received much
support through research programmes over the last ten years, concepts of social innovation
are now relatively well established in Europe and are also becoming important globally. Social
innovations aim to directly address unmet social needs in new ways by developing or
enhancing new products and services through the direct engagement of the people who need
and use them, typically through a bottom-up process. Now, effort should focus on inclusive
innovation as a type of social solution which specifically targets excluded and marginalised
people. Frugal innovation, in turn, aims to do this frugally, i.e. using minimal resources by
developing highly innovative business models that can do much more for much less specifically
for poor people and without exploiting them, but also to help meet circular economy and
3
Parts of this paragraph are taken from the International Conference on Understanding and Tackling the Migration
Challenges: the role of research, 4-5 February 2016: https://ec.europa.eu/research/conferences/2016/migrationchallenge/index.cfm
4
Arnold, D (2008) Cultural Heritage As a Vehicle for Basic Research in Computing Science: Pasteur's Quadrant and a
Use-Inspired Basic Research Agenda, Computer Graphics Forum, Volume 27 - Issue 8 (pp. 2188-2196)
other economic and social goals. Frugal innovation is of great potential importance for
European industry, especially in times of increasing global competition and relative resource
scarcity. Europe can learn much from other parts of the world about inclusive and frugal
innovation, for example from India where the related concept of Jugaad innovation has a long
tradition, but there are also traditions in Europe which need research and innovation support.
Second, inclusive business emphasises sustainable solutions that go beyond philanthropy and
expand access to goods, services, and livelihood opportunities for low-income communities in
commercially viable ways. Innovation is the key for success for inclusive business companies,
because the margin per unit is typically low given customers are the poor. Frugal innovation,
inclusive innovation, social innovation and co-creation are all specific pathways to develop
inclusive business strategies. These are implemented by companies from advanced economies
together with people both within and beyond Europe living in low-income communities, the
latter as co-partners for designing new goods and services to be sold in low-income markets.
Third, design thinking and behavioural approaches are holistic frameworks that attempt to
understand the full architecture of why and how a product, service or initiative is developed
and used. They constitute an evolving and experiential practice pushing the boundaries,
learning, experimenting and applying successful approaches as they develop. Design thinking is
a paradigm shift away from traditional top-down, expert- and often technology-driven
innovation traditions, but is instead human-centred in social, emotional and functional terms.
Borrowing insights from the ethnographic and anthropological traditions, behavioural
understanding lies at the base of design thinking in its attempts both to understand and
influence peoples actual as opposed to theoretical (often economically determined and
rational) behaviour. One of the now widely disseminated behavioural frameworks is the socalled nudge approach which recognises that, although traditional attempts to change
behaviour by regulation are of course important, often more effective is the power of social
norms and social networks in behaviour patterns.
Fourth, although innovation is commonly understood as a process of change in products,
services and processes, institutional innovation is designed to change how organisations
operate and are governed. It questions the underlying framework conditions of public and
private institutions, whether formal or informal, at the local as well as the global level. It can
affect democratic institutions as much as corporate governance and the informal rules that
influence individual and collective behaviour.
Fifth, the potential of radical innovations defined as unanticipated, game-changing answers
to address complex and interdisciplinary societal challenges, are seen in contrast to
incremental innovation as a paradigm shift in the practices that can fundamentally transform
the ways in which we do things and we co-exist in the world. Radical innovations are often
disruptive in that they require the interaction of experts from different disciplines as part of a
new organisational culture. They also address intangible transitions, beyond economic criteria,
through engagement with societies beyond only academic communities. Such transformations
require incentives and support for interdisciplinary teams that work bottom-up, combining
challenge-driven research with research-driven innovation. The human factor is at the core of
radical innovations requiring a broad understanding across all fields of science.
2.
Migration
Modern European society is the current manifestation of millennia of migrations both inwards
and outwards and this process continues. Current migration challenges and opportunities need
to be considered in this light as the most recent examples of the processes that have created
the communities in which we live and work. Understanding migration within, to and from
Europe must recognise that the world is interconnected, transnational and constantly
changing, and that this results in many different and interrelated - forms of human mobility.
European societies in particular can be characterized as hybrids, and processes of change,
partly following from migration, as hybridisation. A recent European conference explored how
European research can support policy makers in designing effective and sustainable migration
policies. To this end, past and current research on migration including on integration, circular
migration, migration and development, data and statistical modelling was presented and
debated from a policy perspective.5
2.1.
Lessons of the past
Research and innovation should address the types and antecedents of migration as a universal
global phenomenon throughout history. Knowledge of different waves and modes of migration
and their consequences need to be analysed with historical, cultural and comparative
perspectives, which is essential for understanding current European challenges and
opportunities and thus the ability to successfully address them.
The question why is this a crisis now? must be seen in this context and directs attention to
the complexity of migration, i.e. globalisation and its impact on the circulation of both people
and information. No single event but intertwined processes need to be understood as causes
of migration. Cause and effect types of explanation are rarely possible or unambiguous, and
there is also a dearth of relevant data. It is also important to recognise both the short-term
and long-term expectations concerning the impact of migration, and of the time-scales over
which migrant groups might become embedded fully-functioning citizens in their new
environment. This, in turn, is often reflected through the shaping of public opinion and the
predominant narratives of migration, especially as conveyed by politics and the media.
Trying to unravel the drivers of migration directs attention to the historical and socio-political
contexts in which the phenomena of migration and refugee movements take place or have
taken place in the past. Historicising and contextualising migration and refugee movements
facilitate the disclosure of the societal dynamics and the motives of individuals and groups
involved in the current migration and refugee phenomenon. History also shows that challenges
and the need for action may be quite different for handling acute short-term situations, as
currently experienced in Europe, compared to longer term societal development and
responses. Europe should not forget that what is now considered European cultural heritage is
of course formed as a result of earlier waves of migration, and could be studied as one of the
consequences and impact of migration.
Previous European migration movements were much bigger than todays, such as at the close
of the Second World War. In geographic terms, Europes currently perceived crisis needs to be
seen in the context of hundreds of thousands of refugees from the Crimea and the Donetsk
region, nearly 3 million Syrian refugees in Turkey and other neighbouring countries, as well as
the 3 million Afghan refugees in Iran. Societies change over time and are continuously
5
International Conference on Understanding and Tackling the Migration Challenges: the role of research, 4-5
February 2016: https://ec.europa.eu/research/conferences/2016/migration-challenge/index.cfm.
recreated with migrants as part of this process. Migrant groups do not reproduce solely as
migrants groups over time, as one of the consequences of migration is intermarriage or
intermixing, gradually producing a new population and society.
An often important socio-cultural factor which needs exploring is the religion of migrants. This
may be considered as a form of protection during the first initial period of settlement in the
host society, but can evolve within the context of the host society as well as result from the
changing attitudes of migrants themselves. Why and how do such religious changes take place,
and with which social and political effects? This also has an important gender dimension given
the different ways in which gender is considered in different religions.
2.2.
Understanding human mobility
The SC6 work programme should recognise the holistic structure, essence and dynamic
mechanisms of migration. The term migration covers many diverse types and actors, such as
refugees, asylum seekers, family re-unification, economic migration, intra-European migration,
external migration to and from Europe, etc. These need to be distinguished, but the interplay
between them is also important within the overall concept of human mobility.
The specification of actors involved in the current European migration and refugee challenge is
needed to understand the societal dynamics of these phenomena. This will help in the
examination of the multiple and interlocking issues related to migration and refugee
movements upon diverse sectors of society. These include all aspects of inclusive, innovative
and reflective societies, such as ways of life, integration, assimilation, culture, history, diversity
and multi-culturism, refugee movements, diaspora, post-colonial relationships, demography,
labour, education and other issues. In turn, these issues involve and impact different actors in
diverse ways, for example:
Young people and children
Families, both separated and re-united
Unaccompanied minors
Intellectuals, artists and creative professionals
Skilled labour
The gendered categories of actors.
2.3.
Migration drivers and dynamics
SC6 research and innovation should examine the whole process of migration; why people
decide to move, what are they driven by and attracted to, how migration decisions are taken,
the routes followed, and not least the impacts on the locational origins of migration,
intermediary locations and destination locations. Drivers might often have multiple
manifestations, for example the lack of work in one location can induce a would-be migrant to
move to a destination location where work is likely to be found. War and acute disruption in
one location can drive residents towards more peaceful locations. A potential migrants
awareness of her/his own situation has been dramatically increased in recent years by the
availability of new ICT, especially mobile and smart phones as well as social media. This has
also affected their feelings of relative deprivation (comparing ones situation with what it
could be in another country), as well as of possible migration destinations and routes, for
example through transnational networks (e.g. friends and relatives that may facilitate travel
and establishment abroad).
2.3.1.
Drivers of migration
A large and intertwined mix of migration drivers can be important and need to be better
understood, including for example:
Geopolitical transformations, such as war, terrorism, dysfunctional states and political
persecution, most recently in the case of Syria but also in other conflict and tension
zones outside Europe. Migration is increasingly used as a weapon in the new
geopolitical power game by different states and groups. There are also conflicts and
crisis in Europe and its neighbourhood: Ukraine, Caucasus, the Middle East, and the
MENA countries.
Environmental and climate change factors, especially when these affect basic survival
and even general standards of living.
Economic interests in natural resources.
Poverty (although it is often not the poorest who migrate as migration has high costs),
economic aspiration, lack of work (for example for educated and skilled young people),
lack of or poor social and other services including education, health and basic
infrastructure. Such reasons might also be linked to the attractiveness of diaspora
communities for members of the same background, such as the Chinese quarters in
many European towns and cities.
Cultural, religious and ethnic tensions.
Discrimination of minorities and disadvantaged groups within Europe as drivers of
mobility, for example the intra-European migration of the Southeast European Roma.
The possible role of colonialism and capitalism which, some argue, has attempted to
impose predefined models of democracy on conflict and tension zones, largely to
ensure their own interests rather than those of the colonised countries themselves.
Research and innovation are also needed into the abundant and complex mixes of reasons
why migrants attempt to move to potential host locations, including for example:
Peace and stability, especially for migrants from conflict zones outside Europe many of
whom might later be accepted as asylum seekers if they are fleeing persecution of
various types.
Perceptions concerning the ways of living, employment and even gender relations in
potential host societies, which might be regarded as a life quality factor for migrants.
Socio-economic migration, to find work, education, housing, good social and other
services, etc.
Cultural and ethnic migration to join existing affinity communities, whether as
majorities or minorities, where the potential migrant would feel culturally at home and
achieve a better quality of life, for example in the diaspora communities mentioned
above.
Family reunion as the largest single factor explaining immigration in Europe today,
with between one quarter and one third of the total.
Attractive or feasible migration routes from the locational origins of migrations to
destination locations, whether legal or illegal, the latter perhaps facilitated by people
smugglers and traffickers.
2.3.2.
Migration dynamics
Migration is a dynamic process which needs to be seen within a time dimension and can
sometimes last a lifetime or even many generations. In this context, there may be many
different forms of migration, such as temporary, permanent, return or replacement. Barriers
to migration may also be important, such as the issue of whether borders are open or closed
10
and the different political and legal regimes in each country or region en route. After the
immediate post-1945 migrations across Europe, the current migration has been the largest
experienced in quantitative terms whilst also raising many qualitative and often ambiguous
issues. The former requires better data and statistical analysis, whilst the latter requires
nuanced discussion and analysis. Given that post-Soviet countries have specific issues with
democratisation and are still state and culture building, there may be particular economic and
political/democratic concerns compared to Central East Europe and Western European
countries.
There are often significant impacts on the localities losing migrants which need to be
examined. For example, especially in the context of socio-economic migration, serious issues
around the concepts of brain drain, brain gain and brain waste can occur when the mainly
young, economically active and often male migrants leave either permanently or temporarily
to find work and education. However, this is a contested scenario, which does not take
account of the different locational origins of migration, for example whether from Asia, the
Near East or Africa. In situations where migrants are the main income earners, many send
financial remittances home to their families on a massive scale, hugely surpassing overseas
development aid, with a view to later returning back to the origins of their migration or
arranging for their families to join them in the destination location. Social remittances, as
ideas and models conveyed by migrants back to non-migrants in the origin society, can also be
highly important.
There are implications for societies en route, such as Turkey and Greece in the present context.
In the case of Turkey, many current migrants from the Middle East share similar values, and
even before the current conflict there was a socio-economic and cultural dynamic between
these societies, including industrial and business activities, familial relations, strong social ties
and many cases of intermarriage. It might be useful to envisage different types of migration
pathways as migration can take a long time and may never be final.
Migration destinations are often determined by networks of former migrants as well as by the
perceived benefits of migration, although sometimes migrants have little choice where they in
practice find themselves, depending typically on political as well as socio-economic factors.
There are significant European-wide, national as well as local implications for Europe as a
major destination of migrants, concerning for example:
Integration and assimilation as some of the most important challenges and goals of
migration policy. Both can be disputed terms, as can many others in the migration
debate, so need careful analysis. A broad definition of integration might be to become
and to feel accepted as a member of a society. However, there is concern that
integration is seen by some as a prejudicial process implying the take over of one
culture by another where it is not seen as a two-way process. In contrast, others see it
as a melting pot which mixes values and cultures leading to a new culture of common
values and beliefs supported by sufficient understanding and communication to
survive. In contrast, assimilation is sometimes used to stress even more profoundly
such take over of one culture by another, but may also be seen as producing a society
which is influenced by the ways of life of both immigrant and host.
It might be useful instead to see this perennial debate in the context of inclusion
and/or exclusion. The notions of meeting of values or cultural encounters point to the
more equal influences of cultures. However, it is also clear that migrants are typically a
minority in the host society and thereby become heavily exposed to the culture of that
11
society, while natives are often only anecdotally exposed to the culture of the
migrants countries of origin.
Specific attention should be paid to the situation in cities where tensions and potential
solutions are often most visible, for example over limited resources and services.
There are many actors involved in the process of intercultural dialogue in cities, such
as the city administration, city councils, political parties, religious establishments,
labour unions, etc. Existing case studies of European cities are not always comparable
and therefore research and innovation are needed to learn lessons and develop viable
solutions.
Past strategies, case studies and failures to integrate migrants from outside the EU
need research. For instance, the UK in the past has mobilised housing associations to
implement its strategy to integrate migrants from Commonwealth countries, and the
Norwegian integration experience has had some successes, both of which could
provide relevant reference material for researchers, innovators and policy makers.
Inter-cultural and multi-cultural values, policies, practices and their implications need
to be examined, alongside intergroup relations, to address the major issues impacting
both migrant and host societies. The terms multi-culturalism and so-called separate
communities are particularly contested topics in many countries, so what these
actually mean needs to be addressed on both a conceptual as well as empirical level.
Systematic data is needed here as elsewhere.
Reflection upon the issue of inter-culturalism that refers to the interaction, interexchange as well as inter-mixing of cultures and actors, also related to life styles,
societal values and the pluralisation of national identity.
The concept of transnational citizenship, i.e. the disconnection of civil rights from
nationality. The societal space in which civil rights are implemented might be
considered to be the transnational space of interaction between actors rather than the
national society.
Social welfare systems, the labour market, etc., which can be put under great pressure
given the strong regional disparities within the EU, for example, between Northern
and Southern Europe, between Western and Eastern Europe, as well as within
individual countries.
There also appears to be an increasing challenge of involuntary migration or abused
migrants, for example through human trafficking and enforced labour of especially
vulnerable people like groups of women and children.
Migration also has implications for demographic change, both in in terms of the
locational origins of migrations and of the destination locations. In the former, in some
contexts the loss of young, often educated and creative people (graduate
unemployment is high in many developing countries), can seriously weaken the
remaining population. In the latter, long-term demographic change of the existing
population in Europe is underway, resulting from increases in life expectancy and
lower population reproduction rates, even with increases in the retirement age. This
raises issues about fiscal policy, pensions, economic productivity, etc., producing the
so-called ageing society. Inward migration, especially of young economically-active
people, can be one important solution to this challenge.
Compared to the US, for example, Europe is often perceived as a less enabling
environment for entrepreneurs who wish to exploit the opportunities generated by
economic transformation. Whether this perception is real or not, it has resulted in the
migration of some of the best brains and most skilled entrepreneurs away from
Europe, especially younger ones. Moreover, the most skilled migrants from outside the
EU may not be migrating to Europe for the same reason.
12
Internal migration within Europe as a growing process should also be examined, especially
amongst young people. This can often be seen it as a positive process since it enables people
to choose where to live and work independently from their birth nation. More opportunities
might be equated with more liberty, so the current youth can perhaps be seen as the first truly
European generation. The questions for research include the impact of internal migration and
the new challenges arising, such as a multicultural society, the transformation of family and
local communities, undermining the rationale for public education as one nation pays for the
benefit of another, the right to vote, national insurance, etc. This phenomenon is also linked to
the changing economy and affects future governance.
Post-migration research and innovation should also be an important focus in providing insights
into the issue of migration and values. This might include the multi-disciplinary examination of:
2.4.
The changing ways of life of both migrant and host communities living in different
countries, as these changes from both perspectives.
How migrants can enhance the quality of life of the host country by bringing new
ideas, cultures as well as new skills and competences.
How refugees, migrants, asylum seekers and the brain drain, for example, reflect the
many different circumstances of the individual and their own free will in very different
contexts. These might range from escape from danger to the attraction of a good
education. Migration from Europe can also involve wealthy, often elderly, groups
moving to warmer more luxurious locations, perhaps in gated communities, or as socalled tax exiles.
The threat of alienation and even radicalisation of a small number of second and third
generation migrants, populism in host societies in the context of the financial crisis and
austerity conditions in many countries, and the perception of flawed European
foreign policies over the past ten to fifteen years. This is leading, on both the extreme
left and right of politics, to the growth of new social movements, and in some cases
the formation of vigilante groups and the use of violence.
Post-secularization and the so-called bitter moments of European history, for
example as seen in the recent clear shift from a modern laicism-driven society into an
increasingly nationalistic and religious-driven society, with consequences even at the
level of some countries founding constitutions. These represent potentially existential
challenges to European values and culture. For example, how to protect and defend
the EUs founding principles of justice-fraternity values which some see as threatened
by large numbers of diverse migrants; how to identify migrants who arrive as
infiltrators with possible radicalisation intentions, and what measures can we take,
not just in terms of physical walls but also culturally and politically?
Post-secularization is also a field of research that allows the exploration of dichotomies
(political, cultural, etc.) between countries which are open to cultural diversity. This
might be done, for example, through religion (both by calling religion to the fore, as in
constitutional changes) or by totally excluding it from the public dimension (as in
symbols, excluding or prohibiting certain ways of living).
Cultural and integration research
In the world of the early 21st century, the Humanities and the Social Sciences, besides their
intrinsic value, are important means to address the challenges created by the on-going social
and economic transitions particularly in three fields. First, to face the culture of migrants it is
necessary to be secure in one's own culture, as well as to understand the culture of the
migrant. Second, to provide both knowledge and understanding of the wider European
13
heritage, as well as that of migrant communities, is a task and challenge for research and
innovation as well as for the educational system. Third, independent of these two closely
interconnected challenges, the Humanities as curators of the cultural heritage of the
continent, are curators of a resource of great importance for the further development of the
economic potential of the creative industries.
2.4.1.
The culture of migrant communities
Knowledge about the cultures and societal conditions of migrant communities is necessary on
two levels. On the one hand administrative measures for an immigrant community have to
understand that community without being perceived as hostile. On the other hand, the society
that is expected to integrate new communities, has to understand them to avoid hostility bred
by anxieties borne from ignorance. Both goals require research into the background of the
currently arriving communities. For this purpose we need procedures which enable the
monitoring of the social and cultural background of the new arrivals. On a very fragmentary
level, such knowledge is already being collected. For example, on the most pragmatic level,
planning for the integration of the new arrivals into the labour force requires resilient
knowledge about the educational level of those arrivals. However, given that knowledge is
currently collected in an uncoordinated manner by some national agencies, a stringent
monitoring programme is needed.
This research requires a combination of Social Sciences and Humanities' knowledge and
methods. The Humanities, in particular can provide the knowledge needed to understand the
background of migrants, which is based upon research into the culture from which they come.
For this purpose, a two-step monitoring approach is needed. For all countries, or distinct
regions within countries, which are currently sending immigrants into the EU, background
studies of the currently relevant characteristics of their cultural and social systems are
required. This should be prepared in a form that makes it possible to derive relatively quickly
the information needed to design interview modules which can be applied to migrants to
obtain a better understanding of their background. These background studies can be
operationalised as educational modules described in section 0.
This background should include, but not be restricted to, information about:
The current social system of the countries of origin.

The concrete state of the religious communities within the respective societies and
their interrelationships.
The self-evident cultural assumptions within the immigrant communities and the
interrelations between these communities.
The view the various communities within these countries have of their own past and
their cultural tradition, contrasting these views with the understanding of them held
by the outside world.
Such an examination of the original cultures of the migrant populations needs to be

supplemented by an analysis of the modalities of adaptation into receiving societies. In this
context, contributions are needed, for example, from the political sciences (in order to study
the mobilisations of the associations in civil society), from sociology (for the study of the social
attitudes of the immigrants but also the role of religious organisations in their process of
integration), and from anthropology (to take into account the question of the daily interactions
with the populations of the host country).
14
1. The modalities of installation in the host societies. How do migrants fit into the culture
of the receiving society? How do they organise their existence in this new environment
(work, neighbourhood, marriage, etc.)? How do they build their new identity? How do
they articulate their initial identities with the culture of the country where they live?
Are there differences between the populations welcomed according to their cultural,
religious or historic background? Do social, sexual or religious variables play a role in
the processes of integration?
2. The three types of actors involved in migrant integration in the receiving society. First,
immigrants' associations, which often allow their members to maintain a transnational
link with their country of origin, but which, at the same time, develop for them
demands of recognition in the receiving society. Second, the strategies of religious
organisations towards the migrants. Third, the state administration and the public
policies of integration (see below).
3. The historic stages and processes of integration. It is important to raise the question of
the work of the generations. How do populations transform their relationship to the
host societies? It would be useful to question the hypothesis of a linear and
harmonious acculturation of the settled populations. Research and innovation should
also examine the phenomenon of the resistance of the second and third generations
to the integration process.
2.4.2.
The culture of the receiving society
The integration of migrants into the receiving society should be considered as both a challenge
and as an opportunity to integrate them from the outset, not into the traditions of one of the
Member States of the EU, but into the EU as a whole. This could also be seen as an opportunity
to create a more general understanding of the European tradition and culture which is more
than just the sum of the traditions of Member States, as well as to stimulate such
understanding across the Member States themselves.
On the conceptual level, it is generally the case that the Humanities and the Social Sciences are
still primarily studied within the national frameworks within which they were shaped during
the 19th and 20th Centuries. Many European countries have looked at their textbooks for
secondary and primary education bi-nationally to emphasise commonalities rather than past
conflicts, particularly in the teaching of history. However, more is needed. Many such efforts
have so far focused on the suppression of traditions of conflict and rivalry, but a more positive
approach is required, i.e. the intentional presentation of the integrative aspects of European
culture. This should include a stronger emphasis on the huge effects migrations have had on
the development of European culture and society, both as refugees and other groups leaving
their countries of origin to escape unfavourable conditions or outright persecution. It should
focus on members of the cultural and other elites that today are often considered as an
integral and central part of the national cultural heritage of their target countries. In addition,
consideration should be given as to how culture influences the social, political and economic
functioning of the different societies affected by migration. Europes identity is broader than
the sum of individual nations. Like any other identity, however, it does not only include, it also
separates. It is also important to understand what is different between Europe and its
neighbours, and what constitutes the sum of the national identities converging in Europe.
Research dedicated to the identification of such traits of a European culture which is more
than the sum of its cultural parts, can deal with the whole breadth of the Humanities:
15
The importance of the trans-national mobility of cultural elites in the past, in

literature, music as well as the visual arts.
Migrations into the centres of industrial development, many of which created

problems of integration and which are similar to the ones we encounter today.
The integration of whole communities, persecuted in their countries of origin, into a

new country.
Are there polarisation effects on society and how can cultural and other forms of
resilience be developed?
The study of migrations also needs to take into account the public policies of states towards
populations recently arrived, but also the reactions of populations in the host country. At this
level, it is probably necessary to develop comparative analyses.
First, the construction of integration policies. Several types of policies have already
been analysed, for example related to employment, to housing and to town planning.
It is also necessary to take into account artistic policies (for example how are
immigrants represented in museums and cultural centres?), media policies (for
example, what image do the media present of their presence,), and in terms of
educational policies research and innovation should focus on the question of the
rearmament of the values of Europe and its constituent nations.
Second, the reception of immigrant populations. The question of the integration of the
immigrants has aroused, and continues to arouse, diverse reactions in Europe. Two
types of research and innovation could be developed at the level of civil society: a) the
modalities of welcome of the immigrant populations, through a study of the strategies
of certain militant organisations, but also through ordinary interactions (such as
marriage and neighbourhood relations); and b) the modalities of rejection of
immigrants, for example through new discursive productions and new militant and
populist mobilisations.
2.4.3. Teaching to integrate

Both in order to integrate migrants into the EU, as well as to spread stronger feelings of
identity with and social inclusion within Europe among the migrant population, new
approaches to teaching should be promoted. An orchestrated effort is needed to propagate
Europe's cultural heritage through modern teaching technologies on all educational levels.
For the immigrant populations this requires:
Digital teaching modules which introduce the migrants to Europe's culture, presented
from a viewpoint transcending national traditions.
The preparation of these as templates to be adapted to the languages of the migrants'
various countries of origin, as needs arise and change.
The creation of such resources should be supported by incentives for the creative
industries, in close synchronisation with cultural and educational systems.
The adaptation of these to all levels of education, teaching and training, as well as the
self-teaching of the adult immigrant population.
In exactly the same way, there is a need to improve the integration of research and innovation
results into the integrative results of earlier migrations within Europe. This can be used at all
16
levels of the educational system to improve the understanding of Europe as a continental

society as the result of successfully overcoming regional differences and controversies.
See also section 3.3.4. on the European cultural heritage as a driver of technical innovation.
2.5.
Impacts of migration
In addition to examining those impacts of migration which are seen immediately (such as
language, culture, housing, work, etc.), it is important to look at longer-term impacts,
alongside other potential micro, meso and macro impacts. In particular, research and
innovation are needed to better understand, measure and, if possible, forecast the impacts on
the demography of an ageing society, on the labour force, on growth in general, on public
finances, on social and public services, and on remittances. Like the short-term impacts, such
medium and longer-term impacts on societies, whether on the locational origins or
destinations of migrations, are often hotly contested politically and are typically polarised into
either negative or positive debates. If the short term impacts can lead to difficult situations in
the receiving country (such as raising unemployment and adding costs to the public finances),
the long run evolution should be more positive in the context of an ageing society.
Nevertheless, the long-term impacts are influenced by the capacity of the receiving society to
absorb the shock of immigration waves without suffering a major structural shock. Getting a
better balance and understanding of the policy and other implications is thus an essential
research topic. In this respect, modelling and measuring the short and long term economic
impact of migration and the transition from the short to the long term is essential.
The debate often polarises around the question of whether migrants are a drain on the host
society or a boost, and what makes the difference. Potential negative impacts are often cited
as the undoubted strain on local resources, services and infrastructures, as well as migrants
taking available jobs away from the host labour force by accepting lower wages and poorer
working conditions, at least initially, notwithstanding national and EU regulations on these
issues. This might, it is sometimes claimed, lead to a labour market race to the bottom. On
the other hand, it is noted that such migrants are often prepared to take otherwise essential
but temporary, seasonal and what might be described as unpleasant jobs, that the host
population is not prepared to do, thus filling an important gap in the labour market. A general
issue in this context is the bias of technological progress and that educational systems in
receiving societies typically produce too many unskilled people, so that the inflow of unskilled
migrants adds still more unskilled labour supply. A better understanding is required about
which characteristics of Europes legal, social (social security) and educational/training systems
make our societies more or less resilient to migration waves, which are themselves diverse in
terms of level of education and entrepreneurship.
In contrast to the often pervasively negative view of migration impacts held by much of the
general public, the positive impacts of mobility and migration for European business,
innovation and cultural richness need examining. For example, given that migrants tend to
come from societies that lack resources relative to Europe, many can become start-up
entrepreneurs exemplifying inclusive and frugal innovation approaches which Europe generally
lacks. Thus, it is important to critically examine the current overly negative framework,
discourse and media-inspired narrative of migration in Europe. In this context, research and
innovation actions could investigate the possible advantages in tilting the balance from a static
Europe made up of more or less well defined nations into a more fluid Europe in constant
change, transformation and renewal.
17
As noted, the public discourse tends to undervalue the positive impact of migration for Europe
as a whole. One aspect of the European project is to foster mobility and decouple individual
aspirations from national citizenship, for example through the Erasmus programme which has
provided opportunities for millions of young Europeans to travel, study and then work and live
wherever they decide across Europe. They now represent one of the main engines of
entrepreneurship and innovation, although their rights are not always equally recognised in all
countries. The recent economic crisis has accelerated the process. Large numbers of young
people have left countries with high unemployment looking for better job opportunities
elsewhere. In addition, millions of pensioners have relocated to other Member States for a
better lifestyle. Mixed marriages between European and non-European citizens are also
increasing, reflecting human mobility steered by globalisation. This type of migration perhaps
demonstrates the value of competition between cities and regions to attract the best talent6. It
might also be seen as global competition to increase standards of tolerance, multi-culturalism,
creativity and innovation, and is perhaps the best counter strategy against populism.
New technologies and especially social media, are also having significant impacts on migration,
for example in relation to refugees currently trying to reach Europe, both for collecting
information as well as organising themselves. They also create considerable risks in terms of
privacy and data protection. This needs to be an important area of migration research as it can
also provide enormous economic opportunities. Currently, there are virtually no European ICT
companies successful exploiting this potential, so research and innovation are needed which
can assist in creating a new generation of social media able to:
Replace the unreliable information currently provided by people smugglers with
objective sources of information, for both refugees contemplating the trek to Europe
and those that have already arrived.
Facilitate the establishment of social media in such a way that SMEs representing
Europes cultural diversity can market local-language-optimised solutions based on a
common infrastructure.
Keep the resultant data safe in an area where privacy can effectively be protected by
European legislation.
2.6.
Cross-cutting issues
The following five issues potentially cut across all the research and innovation
recommendations made above for the major theme of migration.
2.6.1.
Gender
There needs to be a specific cross-cutting focus on gender, not only as a standalone issue. In
many situations, women are the most vulnerable individuals among refugees, both as treated
by the group and in the way European policy responds. Women are also more likely to be left
behind or to be trafficked, whilst young single male refugees often travel alone and are more
likely to become alienated and drawn into criminal activity. The transformation of migrant and
refugee communities in Europe is a specifically gendered topic which needs to be researched
separately. The complexities of tendencies such as the radicalisation and populism of
individuals in different communities cannot be understood without a gender dimension.
Florida, R (2005) The Flight of the Creative Class: The New Global Competition for Talent, HarperBusiness,
HarperCollins
18
A gendered perspective should not only focus on women. There are many young single male
refugees who need to be included into society in a productive manner, so that their abilities
can be used and enhanced, their welfare secured, and the stability of European societies can
be maintained. However, it is clear that in some cultures and ethnicities, women are the family
carers and this has been widely used as a positive strategy, so that for example financial
resources are entrusted to them. This implies that research and innovation needs to include a
wide range of different approaches to tackle the integration topic.
2.6.2.
Ethics and values
European ethics and values are being severely tested during the present large scale migration,
leading to a questioning of European identity and its peoples understanding of and reaction to
increasing diversity. Migration leads to a meeting and sometimes a clash of values.
Migration, both in Europe and more generally, needs to be seen in the context of global
inequalities, for example the global South-North divide, as well as the situation of the so-called
emerging economies. Socio-economic inequalities and regional disparities (including in the
European regions) are important, for example in relation to migration in general as well as the
migration of vulnerable groups like the Roma in addition to immigrants from outside Europe.
Such inequalities, whether as the causes or consequences of migration, also have fundamental
meaning for European values and culture, for example in relation to:
Justice, both as perceived in terms of natural fairness and morality, and in formalistic
legal terms, as well as their mis-match and potential conflict.
The ethical dimensions of migration which require political philosophical analysis and
research into the manner in which Europe is responding to the refugee/migration
crisis. This includes, for example, Europes fundamental values, the historical and
philosophical developments and legal foundation of these values, as well as their
contemporary contestations and re-conceptualisations.
Human rights, for example as challenged by the spectre of death at EU borders as a

provocation to European values. The current state of the definition and
implementation of human rights based on UNHCR norms in relation to recent
developments at these borders, and the important role of civil society, need to be
examined.
Issues of democracy, as currently understood and practiced in Europe, where there

were already concerns about the democratic deficit before the current migration
crisis, and how these need to change in the context of millions of migrants without
any formal democratic rights.
Solidarity, also with civil society, both among EU Member States and with non-EU
countries, in addition to being a political principle in its own right within a globalised
environment. This might also be related to EU treaties for dealing with other countries,
as for example through the UN system.
2.6.3.
Digital
Digital tools have at least four important impacts on current European migration which require
a cross-cutting research and innovation effort. First, they ease and facilitate the flow of
19
migrants, making it much easier for migrants to plan and coordinate their journey, for example
using smart phones. Second, ICT makes it easier for the authorities to track and trace
migration flows, as well as for those providing services to plan and deliver these in often
difficult and sometimes acute situations. For example, in operating Turkeys disaster and
emergency management responses in catering for millions of refugees using modern logistical
systems. Third, digital as well as traditional media create awareness amongst recipient
populations regarding migration as an issue, as well as for those living in potential source
locations regarding the potential benefits of migration. Digital technologies can also provide
highly flexible and inexpensive educational and training materials to assist migrants arriving in
host societies to improve their integration into the labour market and in the wider society.
2.6.4.
Sustainable development
It is argued that global sustainable development goals, which include poverty eradication and
respect for human rights, are being undermined by the European emphasis on border controls
and security concerns, both in terms of political priorities and financial and technical
assistance.7 All EU Member States signed the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs) in 2015, acknowledging the positive contribution of migrants and migration to
sustainable development. Migrants can be key development actors and migration needs to be
made to work for sustainable development and for the benefit of both migrants and receiving
societies. Focused SC6 research and innovation is thus required to examine how development
potentials can be achieved. The implementation of the SDGs is an opportunity for Europe to
reemphasise the need for rights-based EU external migration policies and to promote
coherence with longer-term development objectives.
2.6.5.
Europe in the world and international collaboration
Migration is an international and global issue which cannot be addressed only within Europe or
by European policies alone. International collaboration with both governmental and nongovernmental bodies is thus essential for better understanding and therefore more effective
policies and policy implementation. Geopolitical changes can often trigger migration
movements, so it is important to study what geopolitical consequences follow from all aspects
of migration, both in Europe and in the source locations of migrants. What does migration
mean for Europe as a world actor and what does it mean for the external view of Europe?
Migration policy needs rapid, flexible and long-sighted measures starting with policy
innovation, changes in governance (e.g. when does an immigrant get the right to vote?) and
programmes to equip people and all institutions and companies to deal with the change.
Good practice examples in managing migration flows in singe EU or non-EU countries should
be considered. Important governance and policy issues requiring a research and innovation
focus include, but are not restricted to:
7
8
Addressing the WEF8 risk analysis of high-level geopolitical and societal risks which
includes profound social instability, large-scale involuntary migration, state collapse or
crisis, interstate conflict and the failure of national governance. These require
governance and policy responses at all levels, not least internationally.
http://concordeurope.org/2016/01/18/migration-development-spotlight-report-launch/
th
World Economic Forum (2016) Global Risks Report 2016, 11 Edition.
20
Although increasingly typified and regulated as a brain-drain of highly skilled

workforce, the skill sets of migrants into Europe that have historically been
encouraged by European governments to offset local shortages in the labour market,
have also included low-skilled or semi-skilled labour. The greater the encouragement
and facilitation of the migration of high-skilled workers, the more likely it is that this
will undermine the perception of Europe as a responsible global influence. These
inter-relationships need to be understood in the context of the international agenda.
For example, the need to rethink the EUs Africa policy. High growth rates in the last 15
years have led to the belief that Africa, the worlds poorest continent, will become the
China of the 21st Century. At the same time, the African population will double by
2050, and this is likely to increase its migration potential. In a context marked both by
an above average pace of economic expansion and a booming population, an ageing
European Union (EU) will be directly confronted at its doorstep with all major
developments, positive or negative, affecting the African continent. In view of such
challenges, Europe needs to define an ambitious strategy, beyond its traditional role of
main development aid donor, to contribute more effectively to African development
and to create the conditions for it to become sustainable, whilst not denying the
likelihood that some African migration might be beneficial for Europe. In contrast,
China embarked at an early stage on large-scale economic cooperation with Africa. The
proposed EU-EAC Network aims to promote a tripartite cooperation system between
the EU, Africa and China to create a favourable framework for sustainable
development. It argues that the EUs and Chinas comparative advantages can
complement each other for the mutual benefit of all three parties.
Creeping restrictions on the free movement of EU citizens, such as the Roma
deportations since 2010 onwards, as well the proposed restrictions of access to social
welfare for EU migrants in EU member states, as in Germany and the UK.
The role of Turkey in Europes and the broader Middle Easts refugee crisis.
The destabilisation taking place in the Caucasus, Moldova and Ukraine.
The important actors also need to be considered when examining the governance of
migration, not just the nation state and supranational institutions, but also for example:
Civil actors (e.g. grassroots movements, local actors/societies, NGOs, etc.)

Human rights agencies (local, transnational, etc.)
Representatives of migrants.
3.
The human and social dynamics of the Fourth Industrial Revolution
3.1.
Understanding the societal context of technological and economic development
The WEF (2016) defines the Fourth Industrial Revolution in the following way: The First
Industrial Revolution used water and steam power to mechanize production. The Second used
electric power to create mass production. The Third used electronics and information
technology to automate production. Now a Fourth Industrial Revolution is building on the
Third, the digital revolution that has been occurring since the middle of the last century. It is
21
characterized by a fusion of technologies that is blurring the lines between the physical, digital,
and biological spheres.9
The term Fourth Industrial Revolution, although widely used, needs careful unpacking in an
SSH context. Those working in the field use it to refer to the full array of socio-economic,
geopolitical and demographic developments that are impacted by the technological
revolution, both in its third and fourth manifestations. The pace, scale and scope of change
under the Fourth Industrial Revolution is argued to be unprecedented, even in comparison to
the Third, and will touch upon virtually every aspect of modern living. Whilst some changes in
the Fourth Industrial Revolution may be evolutionary in isolation, in aggregate it is hard to
conclude that the overarching societal and human impact will not be revolutionary and
therefore in critical need of a timely and robust SSH analysis. From the perspective of research
and innovation on reflexive, inclusive and innovative societies, these topics should be
addressed in relation to their impact on human life and the quality of the society in which they
are embedded and which they should serve i.e. their role in creating the sort of society to
which European values and ideals aspire.
On some estimates for the Fourth Industrial Revolution, 47% of US jobs are said to be at risk
from automation10, whilst the WEF estimates that by 2025, robots could jeopardise between
40m and 75m jobs worldwide. The WEF also estimates that 65% of children entering school
today will end up working in jobs that currently do not exist. It seems clear that in future, ever
fewer low-skilled and managerial jobs will be available. The fundamental problem is what to
do with a work force in excess and chronic unemployment? These issues require urgent
research and innovation actions, especially in the context of one of the clear benefits of
migration that migrants often undertake types of work in working conditions that existing
labour forces are not often prepared to accept. Given the prognoses of many fewer jobs in
future, will this continue and, if so, how will the changes play out?
Notwithstanding this, some researchers see the current apparent breakthrough of the Fourth
Industrial Revolution (artificial intelligence, big data, the internet of objects, nano-materials,
3D printing, etc.) as portending a huge impact on productivity in the next decades. As in the
last 40 years, GDP growth may be understated. The GDP statistic is indeed a bad indicator
when it comes to measuring quality improving technical progress. Moreover, for future
generations, progress in the standard of living will be less represented by the quantity of
products, of which they will be progressively saturated in the developed countries, than by
improvements to their quality and broadening global reach. Also important are likely to be
improvements in both the quantity and quality of services provided, essentially with a large
involvement of the public sector, which is generally poorly measured in the GDP, so perhaps
supplementary measures are also required. Some will see this as incremental change, rather
than a revolution, but nevertheless empowering significant new opportunities through
innovating tailored services and personalised products that are increasingly supplied ondemand.
These issues illustrate just some of the pressing research and innovation implications at stake,
not least in order to inform both policy and practice. It is clear that the new technologies
underpinned by ICT are having large impacts on almost all aspects of human life, culture,
welfare, lifestyle, wealth creation and employment.
9
http://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/the-fourth-industrial-revolution-what-it-means-and-how-to-respond
(retrieved March 2016).
10
Carl Benedikt Frey and Michael A. Osborne (2013), The future of employment: how susceptible are jobs to
computerization?, Oxford
22
3.2.
Historical perspectives
Historically there is mixed evidence for characterising current and recent changes as a Fourth
Industrial Revolution, so its antecedents need careful scrutiny. For example, GDP per capita
growth was significant during the First and Second Industrial Revolutions, whilst since the
Third there has been much lower productivity growth. However, this is a contested view, both
because of different interpretations of historical data and because it sees an industrial
revolution as only predicated on productivity growth. It thus ignores changes to production
processes, types of work and human and financial capital, and not least the broader potentially
disruptive societal effects.
More broadly, research and innovation actions are needed to better understand how ICT as
the new general purpose technology (i.e. one that underpins and enables most if not all other
technologies as well as how society operates and is structured) is changing society and how
society is, in turn, shaping the technology. Previous general purpose technologies consisted of:
the revolution in transport and communication, 1840-1870

electrification, c. 1890-1940
the rise of mass (broadcast) media, 1940-1970
the current paradigm shift based around ICT which started in the 1970s and continues.
As proposed above, the Fourth Industrial Revolution, which is blurring the lines between the
physical, digital, and biological worlds, can perhaps now be added to this list of general
purpose paradigm shifts. Each of these was brought about by their own radical generalpurpose technologies that had a momentous impact on the economy and society of
industrialised nations. In that way, they serve as models for current developments and
demonstrate how private, public and civil interests interact in creating new goods and services,
new institutions, as well as new values and ways of living. Each historic case illustrates a
general purpose technology that transformed the life of all households, citizens, firms, and
governments, down to the lowest level. The pace of technological development in each was
high, and is today increasing even faster with ICT. The geographical scope of the impacts is also
increasing. For example, transport, communication, and electricity were mainly national in
nature; some broadcast media had an international impact; but now ICT and the other new
technologies are ubiquitously global in orientation.
In sum, the historical antecedents of technological and economic development, particularly in
the context of well-being and societal development more generally, require a very strong
research and innovation focus if policy makers and practitioners are to better understand and
adapt past lessons to future conditions and potential, such as the transition to individual, very
local, lifestyle choices and work patterns.
3.3.
3.3.1.
Drivers and dynamics

The Fourth Industrial Revolution and the policy background
The Fourth Industrial Revolution should be seen in the context of the current European
Commission Presidents agenda. The so-called Juncker Priorities include jobs, growth and
investment; the Internal Market; the Digital Single Market; the Energy Union and climate
change; a deeper and fairer European Monetary Union (EMU); a balanced EU-US free trade
agreement; justice and fundamental rights; migration; Europe as a stronger global actor; and
democratic change. The new EC Innovation Commissioner for Research, Science and
23
Innovation has also articulated three openness priorities: open science, open Innovation and
open to the world. It is also important to focus on the Europe 2020 Strategy, and in particular
issues such as:
Innovation and competitiveness; abundant and green energy versus expensive and
polluting energy; as well as traditional economic values versus new sources of value.
Sustainability: the economic growth model (for example, linear versus circular and
ecological); and governance issues such as elitist and exclusive versus participative and
inclusive.
Although SC6 is not focused on the technological drivers per se, they do involve a concurrent
set of socioeconomic, geopolitics and demographic developments making it is necessary to be
fully aware of their human and societal impacts. The main (and in many ways dramatic)
technological developments driving the Fourth Industrial Revolution include artificial
intelligence (AI), machine-learning, robotics, the Internet of Things (IoT), digital fabrication,
nano- and bio-technologies, materials science, energy and energy storage, big data and data
analytics, quantum computing and hyper-connectivity, block chain technology and drones.
3.3.2.
Societal challenges and impacts
The potential for the Fourth Industrial Revolution to impact all aspects of human life and
European society, economy, culture and well-being is huge, requiring a focused research and
innovation effort to ensure that the right decisions are made to minimise massive negative
disruptions and maximise positive new opportunities. Some likely impact areas include:
Adaptation of jobs and working practices, including longevity and ageing societies,
female empowerment, youth employment in emerging markets and flexible work.
Collaborative economy and societies (see below)
Innovation and creativity
The role of the new creative industries (see sections 0 and Error! Reference source not
ound.)
Creativity and (digital) cultural heritage through the integration of creative activities
(arts) with technologies and business, for example in terms of the semantic
interoperability of databases, gamification strategies and qualitative visual research
and innovation methods (see below)
Lifestyles and social media
Big data for societal challenges (see below)
Data ownership (e.g. individual versus the creative commons); values (consumerist and
materialistic versus non-materialistic).
Radical opportunity spaces, such as global governance (effective global governance
versus a fragmented world); and individual attitudes (e.g. engaged versus opting-out).
New international, intercultural and Internet-orientated education systems.
Uncertainties abound such as, on the one hand, one view contending that only parts of
industry and a limited share of jobs are changing, and that industry and labour is also
characterised by stability, thus maintaining that Europe remains faced with the traditional
question of how its industry is going to meet the challenges of global competitiveness. On the
other hand, such views are perhaps only looking backwards, whilst at the present time there
are many indications of widespread and deep-seated economic changes, for example in
24
relation to the type and number of jobs, as discussed above. According to Rifkin11 and others,
the main areas of progress are expected in the treatment of information, knowledge,
intelligence and artificial intelligence, whilst the very nature of these innovations is leading to
the marginal cost of their delivery and their prices tending rapidly to zero. The free nature of
much knowledge and services potentially represents an important democratisation of access
to such goods and services. This fact is rarely considered in attempts to measure inequality 12
and growth.
European countries today create most of their wealth and have most of their employment in
the service industries as compared to primary production or manufacturing, although the
latter is also experiencing a renaissance based on innovations in digital fabrication and the
factory of the future. However, notions of services and manufacturing have always been
blurred, both because there are many service jobs in manufacturing industry, such as
administration, marketing and R&D, and because many producers of tangible products are
increasingly perceiving what they sell as a service rather than a product. Thus, car
manufacturers are selling mobility as a service, and washing machine manufacturers aim to sell
clean clothes as a service. In turn, this leads to new business models in which, for example,
consumers lease products rather than purchase them as they are less interested in a particular
product than in the service it can provide.
Thus, it is contended by some, that seeing manufacturing industry as being in conflict with the
development of service industry is a false dichotomy. Although the manufacturing sector
remains dominated by large organisations, such traditional and often hierarchical structures
are losing out to much smaller and more nimble units in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. A
strong new trend sees much new manufacturing taking place in small units, including
independent SMEs and social entrepreneurs, for example as driven by new digital fabrication
(3D printing) technologies. These are often characterised by social networks (driven by social
media rather than geographic location), considerations of economic survival, constant change
and individual lifestyle choices, and most indeed are merging aspects of both product and
service into one mindset. The interplay of these two trends and their societal implications
needs careful research and innovation actions.
Other examples include many of the new sharing and collaborative economy business models
which also blur the relationships between producer, supplier and consumer. Some of these
imply some shift toward the experience economy where experiences become more desirable
than objects, especially when imagining a shorter workday, larger incomes and more leisure
time. Such a shift also implies peoples reflective desire to find other meanings in life than
purely consumption. These developments can also have profound implications for supply
chains, for the organisation of work and for the jobs to be done, which in turn will have
impacts on governance and regulation, as well as on education and social security systems.
Large changes in the structure of the population (due to population ageing through increases
in both the number and proportion of elderly people, birth rate reductions, and migration) will
all require the provision of more and better services. These will be especially in the health and
long term care sectors, in the education system and in professional training systems, all of
which are starting to use big data to become increasingly personalised and potentially more
efficient and effective. The first and second industrial revolutions did not greatly change the
11
Rifkin, J. (2014): The zero-marginal cost society: the internet of things, the collaborative commons and the eclipse
of capitalism. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
12
Edward Gleaser: Secular joblessness, in Coen Teulings and Richard Baldwin: Secular Stagnation: Facts, Causes, and
Cures.
25
provision of such services, whilst the third and now the fourth have the potential to do so if
the right regulations are implemented and the impediment to their developments overcome.
In addition to service needs, life-long learning and adaptive skills retraining will be critical given
that the impact of technological and other changes is shortening the shelf-life of employees
existing skill sets across nearly every industry globally. For example, what changes are required
in the organisation of the educational system from basic schooling to university level? What
would it mean in terms of investment and accumulation of human and social capital, as well
other intangibles like AI and software, courses and digital content? More importantly, how
should pedagogical methodologies be reconfigured in the context of the Fourth Industrial
Revolution? What are the implications of flexible working and study for institutionalised
learning? What are the implications of increasing educational mobility and provision of
materials in English on cultural and linguistic diversity?
3.3.3.
The creative industries and cultural heritage
An important and mainly new economic sector for Europe, which might be considerable
boosted by the Fourth Industrial Revolution, are the creative industries concerned largely with
the generation, organisation and exploitation of knowledge and information. There are
numerous definitions, but many include such areas as advertising, architecture, art, cultural
heritage, crafts, design, fashion, film, music, the performing arts, publishing, R&D, software,
toys and games, TV and radio, video games, and sometimes the education and research
sectors more generally. For many people, heritage is deeply embedded in issues of diaspora,
identity and quality of life, and as such is strongly linked to the issue of migration.
The sector also has extensive economic potential, and a recent H2020 expert group on cultural
heritage made a series of propositions around Getting cultural heritage to work for Europe.
This noted that Europe is the world's top tourist destination and that tourism is the third
largest socioeconomic activity in the EU, contributing 415 billion Euros to the EU GDP and
employing 15.2m citizens many of whose jobs are linked to heritage.13 It is estimated that
there were 253,000 jobs in cultural and natural tourism in the UK in 2011 and that its
combined direct, indirect and induced impact (the amount generated by the sectors
purchases from other industries and the spend by workers) provided 742,000 jobs in 2014.14
Currently, cultural industries are perceived as additive value producing activities in two main
areas: arts and their interfaces with industry; and creativity as a methodological problemsolving approach. However, one of the dangers of the economic value of heritage in tourism is
that an artificial or sanitised version of a past culture may be established as a disneyfication of
deeply held values that is neither a fair representation of the past culture nor particularly
educational for visitors, in many cases keeping them apart from the underlying cultural values.
The creative industries represent and embody the challenges of the present economictechnological transition. When artists, scientists and technologists collaborate they are
creating hybrid cultures where their different and compatible domains of knowledge collide15.
There are good practice examples and excellent results in both the US16 and the EU17. Todays
innovation process generally does not benefit from this, so research is needed to identify
13
European Commission, Towards an integrated approach to cultural heritage for Europe, COM(2014) 477 final
Oxford Economics (2013) The Economic Impact of UK Heritage Tourism Economy
15
European digital art and science network, Austria: http://www.aec.at/artandscience/residencies/
16
Steps to an Ecology of Networked Knowledge and Innovation Enabling New Forms of Collaboration among
Sciences, Engineering, Arts, and Design, Roger F. Malina, Carol Strohecker, and Carol LaFayette on behalf of SEAD
network contributors
17
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/ict-art-starts-platform
14
26
reasons blocking a multidisciplinary approach to innovations, especially concerning artistic

participation. These might include: (i) todays education process in the EU is organised by
subject in different academic discipline or sub-disciplines18; (ii) in the workplace, people are
mainly organised around disciplines; (iii) as a result of studying and working in one discipline,
those people who should drive changes often have prejudices that prevent them using the
potential of people in other disciplines; and (iv) for those who do know how to work in
multidisciplinary teams, there are few suitable environments for such work, plus often they are
not included in innovation processes in a non-discriminatory way. Researchers and
technologists rarely start projects with people from various types of fine arts, such as music,
art, painting, sculpture, dance and theatre, etc. In the same way, when artists commence
projects involving ICT they tend to include technologists at the end of the innovative process to
perform services like programming, system administrating or hardware assembling. Such
practices include a high level of discrimination towards people whose full potential might only
be released through collaboration.
3.3.4.
European cultural heritage as a driver of technical innovation
New digital technologies and especially social media in the context of the Third and Fourth
Industrial Revolutions, have the potential to create new digital business models that exploit,
disseminate and commoditise heritage content:
Digital teaching modules, which introduce the migrants to Europe's culture, presented
from a viewpoint transcending national traditions.
The preparation of these as templates to be adapted to the languages of the migrants'
various countries of origin, as needs arise and change.
The creation of such resources should be supported by incentives for the creative
industries, in close synchronisation with cultural and educational systems.
The adaptation of these to all levels of education, teaching and training, as well as the
self-teaching of the adult immigrant population.
In both the curatorial institutions libraries, archives, museums as well as in Humanities
research, digital technologies have played an increasingly important role in recent years. For
both however, innovative research as well as the economic exploitation of cultural heritage
have relied on the application of technologies developed elsewhere. This passive approach to
the connections between technological innovation and the Humanities and Cultural Heritage
has been a missed opportunity. There is a need to develop an ambitious programme to
proactively exploit the opportunities of new technical innovations.
Topics for such Humanities / Cultural Heritage driven research and innovation could include,
but are not restricted to:
Manuscript Optical Character Recognition (OCR). Various projects for the automatic
reading of non-printed materials, from early modern and medieval handwriting, right
through to cuneiform letters, have reached a stage where production quality can be
envisaged within the next decade. This research and innovation will open up
completely new vistas for the Humanities. As it requires new and highly generalised
concepts for OCR, much broader than small improvements in existing technologies
targeted at printed material, it would also open up completely new opportunities for
18
"Examples of subjects". Curriculumonline.gov.uk. 2009-04-20
27
3.4.
3.4.1.
the automatic reading of other classes of non-printed documents, with considerable

economic potential.
New technologies for wide area scans, based on magnetic resonance, ground radar
and a wide array of other approaches, have brought the systematic identification of
archaeological features for very large areas close to general applicability. Besides being
an innovative area, where completely new perspectives for archaeology could be
combined with a significant impact on the development of these new technologies,
this field will also profit immensely from dedicated funding at the organisational level.
In many countries the question of intellectual and administrative property rights for
wide area scans is currently a major stumbling block for the systematic application of
such techniques. A European approach would help significantly to overcome this.
While 3D printing technologies have hit the market in an experimental form already,
many questions are still open. The cultural heritage sector, which almost by definition
is based upon unique objects, is particularly suited to study the possibilities of these
technologies for both content and educational purposes, as well as for creating
business opportunities. In academic research, as well as at least in the secondary tier
of educational systems, the easy accessibility of 3D-printed reproductions as needed
within the schools, opens up completely new possibilities. The opportunities for
museum shops and other sectors of the replica business are also obvious. A new
generation of research and innovation should focus on the possibilities to exploit these
technologies at the outset through their thorough integration into a ubiquitous 3D
infrastructure, rather than focusing on isolated pilot applications.
Ensuring risks and benefits are well distributed
Growth and employment
Among the economic impacts that are expected from the Fourth Industrial Revolution, the
reductive impact on employment is especially worrying, as mentioned above19. Unlike in the
Third Revolution, the type of jobs that are currently at risk are those which require a certain
level of qualification. This is already shown in the wage statistics: salaries for medium
qualifications are stagnating or growing less strongly than those of low or high qualifications20.
The middle class feels neglected by politicians and looks increasingly to the political extremes
for help. The questions are: where can the new jobs be created? Can they be created as fast as
jobs will be destroyed?21 And, even if they are created sufficiently rapidly, the transition from
one job to another of a different nature has always been difficult without a loss of income and
an increase of structural unemployment. Over the last twenty years many policies have
seemed to degrade the income of the middle classes and instead transferred an increasing
amount of the new wealth that has been created to the 10%, or even the top 1%, most
qualified or richest sectors of the population.22
19
See also: Brynjolfsson, E and A McAfee (2013), The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time
of Brilliant Technologies, New York and London: Norton.
20
The result has been an increasingly polarised labour market, with growing employment in high-income cognitive
jobs and low-income manual occupations, accompanied by a hollowing-out of middle-income routine jobs. Carl
Benedikt Frey and Michael A. Osborne (2013)
21
This interrogation is not new: due to our discovery of means of economising the use of labour outrunning the
pace at which we can find new uses for labour (Keynes, 1933, p. 3, Economic possibilities for our grandchildren
(1930). Essays in persuasion, pp. 35873)
22
Oxfam (2016) An economy for the 1%: How privilege and power in the economy drive extreme inequality and
how this can be stopped, January 2016.
28
This serious context requires a very strong research and innovation response that analyses
how the benefits of the Fourth Industrial Revolution are being distributed. Some innovations
have potentially widespread benefits for both producers and consumers, whilst others are
likely to provide most benefit to skilled producers or to a new class of consumers. All
combinations of producers and consumers are possible (cf. the collaborative economy). It is
clear that innovations benefiting, at the same time, a wide range of producers and consumers
would be much more important for growth, employment and living standards. A number of
research and innovation topics arise from this:
Can human labour win the race against technology by means of education and
training? What type of new education and training models are needed to meet a
growing market demand for more social and collaborative skills to complement
technological skills, given that emotional intelligence is one of the critical skill sets
needed in the Fourth Industrial Revolution, and yet has been almost entirely
disregarded by traditional educational and employment models?
What is the potential extent of technological and other causes of unemployment,
given that the increasing pace of technological change is likely to cause higher job
turnover, resulting in higher structural and frictional unemployment rates?
What are the implications for womens employment given that women are largely
employed in precarious jobs?
How are our present gendered stereotypes and imagination influencing the way
technological development will develop in the future?
3.4.2.
Industrial structure and externalities
As in the previous industrial revolutions, scale effects and competitive advantages are likely to
lead to a concentration of supply in a few multinational companies. But an important research
and innovation topic is whether the Fourth Industrial Revolution will be the same or different?
It is critical to examine whether or not 19th and 20th century legal and regulatory frameworks
remain suitable for the 21st century economy and society. On the one hand, there is a danger
that we simply look backwards and try to adapt models that have worked in the past, rather
than truly envision and anticipate the future needs and possibilities that the Fourth Industrial
Revolution can unlock. The early enthusiasm around the sharing and collaborative economy
appears to be leading in a few cases to new forms of industrial concentration and monopoly
economic power. For example, early starters like Airbnb and Uber are now billion dollar global
enterprises able to massively invest in new markets and, according to some sources23,
undercut and wipe out the incumbents, and then, potentially, gain monopoly power. These
new multinationals, in contrast to mainstream sharing economy initiatives and the values and
benefits they promote24, are said to be promoting a race to the bottom in terms of wages and
employment conditions.
On the other hand, it is also undoubtedly the case that many examples of the sharing and
collaborative economy are helping to squeeze new value out of existing (heretofore wasted)
assets and to promote new waves of innovation. If the policy makers and regulators handle it
well, there could be outcomes where benefits are widely distributed through, for example, star
or network configurations based on AI. This is and can dramatically change sectors like music,
entertainment, education, research and higher education.
23
Such as Slee, T (2016) What's Yours Is Mine -- against the sharing economy, OR Books, New York.
See for example Botsman, R & Rogers, B (2010) What's Mine Is Yours -- the Rise of Collaborative Consumption,
HarperCollins Publishers.
24
29
A key question is how can the advent of a new Fordism be assured (but one based on mass
customisation instead of mass production) which ensures a fair distribution of the productivity
gains of the Fourth Industrial Revolution? If this fails to take place, the often evoked secular
stagnation might persist. To ensure this does not happen, what are the necessary reforms
needed to Europes social model? Are the reforms recommended today, and largely derived
from previous industrial revolutions, still pertinent in the context of the Fourth Industrial
Revolution? What are the roles of the private and civil sectors in contributing to and sustaining
a new social model, and what is the role of governance?
Another research and innovation issue that should be addressed is the impact of the Fourth
Industrial Revolution on the negative externalities engendered by previous revolutions,
including the human costs of development and growth. This impact could be very positive if
the new technologies can help develop products and services that are resource efficient
and/or reduce congestion. For example, by exploiting new circular economy principles, Blue
Growth (i.e. the role of the worlds oceans and fresh water resources), sharing and
collaborative economy principles which maximise asset use through sharing rather than
ownership, etc. Apart from reductions in CO2 emissions, improvements in standards of living
can be expected if people are able to reduce drastically the time they spend in traffic jams.
Indeed, the policies which are aiming to prevent pollution disasters, and which are presently
very costly, try to avoid reductions in standards of living rather than increase them. In order to
get the best out of the new technologies, the changes needed in societal organisation need to
be better understood.
3.4.3.
Negative and positive outcomes
As is evident from the above, there are potentially contrasting and highly interdependent
negative and positive societal outcomes likely to arise from the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
These, in turn, are of course subject to both cultural and political filters, which also require
examination. There is a potential down side of the Fourth Industrial Revolution that means loss
of employment, disruption of traditional institutions, changes of habit, displacement and fear
for many. Research and innovation should encompass the cost of transition (e.g. loss of jobs
for unskilled workers replaced by robots, and the shrinking of managerial positions thanks to
automation, changes in university curricula, etc.), mitigation strategies, and political risks such
as the rise of populist movements representing losers and discontents, and voluntary
disenfranchisement.
Whatever happens, there will be significant impacts on welfare, jobs, work organisation, etc.
For example, smart machines will soon be able to replace all sorts of workers, from
accountants to delivery drivers and from estate agents and even to lawyers and other
experts. There are strong risks of labour force polarisation as low-skill jobs continue to be
automated and this trend increasingly spreads to middle class jobs. There are many other
potentially negative societal consequences:
Data analysis work in areas such as advertising and finance is being outsourced to
computers and even the authority of medical experts is being challenged.
However, such impacts seem to depend on the type of activity the more
transactional it is, the more likely it is to be automated. If you go to a fashionable
restaurant, you dont want a robotic waiter. On the other hand if you go to a fast-food
outlet, you may not have a problem with punching buttons and having a burger come
out of a chute.
Further increases in inequality as automation is fundamentally the substitution of
capital for labour.
30
A race to the bottom and a growing precariat as an emerging global class with no
financial security, job stability or prospect of career progression.
On the other hand, there are also many potential positive societal outcomes which require
research and innovation to underpin policies and practices:
By absorbing the routine aspects of work, machines can release people for more
creative activity or fulfilling third sector activity.
Not all jobs are at risk. A lot of work involving personal interaction is unlikely to be
affected. Few people will wish to deal with a robotic undertaker that says Im sorry
for your loss. This is not meaningful in a human context. However, what are the
consequences given that care work is currently largely feminised, badly paid but
emotionally demanding?
Tasks requiring creative and social intelligence are thus likely to be reserved for
humans. However, people will have to acquire and demonstrate creative, social and
emotional skills.
There are huge potential benefits of innovation and new sources of value creation
from the collaborative and sharing economy, if we handle this well in terms, for
example, of forward looking forms of regulation and legal frameworks. These should,
in principle, only specify good outcomes and not how these outcomes are to be
achieved, otherwise innovation will be stultified. However, how these outcomes are
achieved must be subject to smart regulation in terms of ensuring minimum standards
of quality, no or low negative externalities, and no worker exploitation.
There are significant potential benefits of innovation and new sources of value
creation from the collaborative, co-creative and sharing economy, not least because
their potential to squeeze assets both on the supply and demand sides but also as they
can lead to important community building and social cohesion benefits.
Other likely benefits include greater worker flexibility, especially if this can be coupled
with greater worker security as in the Scandinavian flexi-curity systems, better and
more personalised services, more potential sustainable development (such as reduced
need to build more shopping malls and hotels, ability to reduce traffic via car pooling,
less consumption and waste due to sharing, etc.).
There is a lot of work in society that needs doing, not always in a market context, so
the research and innovation question is how to organise society to enable this to
happen. Historically, there have been many claims that jobs will disappear with no new
jobs appearing (such as the Luddites in the 18th and 19th Centuries, and more recently
in Jeremy Rifkins book forecasting the end of work25). All of these have so far been
unfounded, but there is no guarantee that this time it will be the same.
There are also potentially positive impacts on value and supply chains, and on the
environment and sustainability more generally. In the Fourth Industrial Revolution it
may be that the only economically traded (i.e. physically transported or communicated
over large distances) commodities consist of i) talent (high calibre skilled people), ii)
raw materials and energy inputs the occurrences of which are still geographically fixed,
and iii) digital algorithms. IF so, this will have a huge and beneficial environmental
impact as the number of physical goods transported over even medium distances
shrinks. For example, buying a car will consist of the online customisation of the design
you want, the purchase of an algorithm over the Internet, the printing of the car
components locally which are then assembled by robots. And, this might only be the
first step. In principle anyone will be able to design and then build their own car,
25
Rifkin, J (1005) The End of Work: The Decline of the Global Labor Force and the Dawn of the Post-Market Era,
Putnam Publishing Group.
31
anytime and anywhere, so why purchase anything from the car manufacturer? Such
companies might cease to exist unless they adapt dramatically to what is happening
and, like many other incumbents in traditional industries such as computing and
media, be killed off by the forces of creative destruction. Putting this into the context
of the circular economy, many other potential benefits may also be perceived.
3.5.
recommendations made above for the major theme of the human and social dynamics of the
Fourth Industrial Revolution.
3.5.1.
Gender
Gender related issues cut across all societal implications of the Fourth Industrial Revolution,
including in relation to work, education and social relations. For example, what are the
consequences that care work remains largely unpaid and done by women? Why does the socalled glass ceiling still often block the rise of women to positions of high power in the
workplace, and why are they more likely than men to be unemployed and in precarious work?
The normal academic discourse warning of a race to the bottom and the formation of both a
European and global precariat in terms of the types of work and working conditions tends to
be either non-gendered or focused on the loss of traditional male manufacturing and bluecollar work over the last twenty years. However, recent research shows that both historically
and at the present time, such precarious work is much more prevalent in female
employment.26 This historical precariousness of paid womens work contrasts quite sharply
with the contemporary relatively stable framework of male employment in both blue-collar
and white-collar occupations. This, coupled with much womens work traditionally being
unpaid, for example in the home, casts a new light on gendered differences in employment
which requires more research, especially in the context of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
More positively, there may be potential benefits for traditionally female oriented jobs arising
from the increasing importance of emotional Intelligence in the Fourth Industrial Revolution
(i.e. it is not possible to automate compassion). At the same time, it might be fruitful to
explore potential ways to channel this importance into higher paying employment for women.
This presupposes, in fact, that men in general do possess lower emotional intelligence than
women, which is by no means established even though it may reflect current perceptions.
3.5.2.
Ethics and values
What does it mean to be human in the next industrial revolution? Machines can already make
decisions for us on the basis of vast amounts of data, but at least at present they can neither
think nor feel that this matters, although some developments in the field of emotional
machine learning and AI point to possibilities. However, if we ascribe agency and intentions to
our tools that they dont possess, we misunderstand several fundamental points. Humans are
highly flexible and innovatory beings, and machine efficiency is a very poor model for
understanding people. Cutting people out of most decision-making loops to maximise speed,
profit, protection or military success may be a poor model for a future in which humans and
machines need to work together. Research and innovation are needed to enable humans to
remain in the loop, to be able transparently to assess a systems incentives and to influence its
26
McDowell, L. (2016) Migrant Womens Voices: Talking about Life and work in the UK since 1945, published by
Bloomsbury Press, London.
32
direction or debate its alteration. Human creativity and well-being should be core, so there is a
need for reflectivity and to focus on the human condition and what it means to be human in
the Fourth Industrial Revolution. The current paradigm shift requires that we question what is
meant by technology. It is clear that in many ways it is socially constructed, but is also very
much determined by market forces, and thus the policy and regulation (or lack of the same)
which underpins this. What are the impacts on the underprivileged and marginalised, on
gender issues and on inequality and access?
Are we really heading into a fully cybernetic world where space and time will be perceived not
only by our own human senses in which we are simply one small part of a huge network fabric
of interconnected things and information? In this context, the 1990s debates about
augmented reality are now out-dated, whilst the prospects of dystopias and the singularity of
science fiction become more and more likely. What if advances in biomedicine, for example
from the European Human Brain project, open hitherto unknown doors to both
consciousness and unconsciousness, and how can we organise society in such a context?
Already today in the workplace, there is increasing insecurity regarding the relationship
between people and advanced technology, where individuals need to learn to cope with the
consequences of omnipresent machines and networks of a completely new kind. How are
human values, ethics and well-being protected and promoted in such a context? What are the
philosophical implications of blurring boundaries between the physical, biological, and digital
sphere? An ethical dimension needs to be introduced in the exploitation, for example, of big
data, bio-technologies, as well as the tensions between the citizens right to privacy and
improved security systems through routine surveillance and image analysis.
3.5.3.
Digital
As examined above, the Fourth Industrial Revolution is predicated on new technology, and in
particular on ICT as the new ubiquitous general purpose technology. ICT provides the common
thread which underpins and enables innovation surges in many other technologies and in their
economic, social, cultural and governance impacts. These technologies themselves directly
enable new products, services and business models, for example by making it possible to
massively extend the reach and quality of archiving and presenting cultural heritage.
3.5.4.
The Europe 2020 Strategy identifies smart, sustainable and inclusive growth as a means to help
develop a resource efficient, greener and more competitive economy while delivering high
levels of employment, productivity and social cohesion. In this context, SC6 research and
innovation should aim to help build a green economy, for example through a circular economy
in sync with the natural environment. It is important to assist innovators in bringing green
solutions to the market by identifying the substantial business and job creation opportunities
while tackling important resource efficiency challenges. These European concerns are very
closely aligned with the seventeen Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) which include
strong emphasis on: zero poverty; quality education; decent work and economic growth;
resilient infrastructures in the context of inclusive and sustainable industrialisation which
fosters innovation; inclusive, safe and resilient cities and human settlements; sustainable
consumption and production patterns; and urgent action to combat climate change and its
impacts. There is also explicit focus on the use of new technology, especially ICT.
33
3.5.5.
Research and innovation are needed to reconfigure European policy for the turbulent world
described above. Over the past four decades, the political model, including its legal and
regulatory frameworks that both facilitated the global spread of technology and provided
some protection against its disruptive consequences, has come under attack. It is clear that
welfare states have become less generous, levels of long-term unemployment are much
higher, taxation has become less progressive, and many contend that politics has increasingly
been dominated by money and special interests. Whether or not these trends are conducive to
inclusive, innovative and reflective societies requires urgent research and innovation actions,
particularly because they are global in extent, not confined to Europe alone and in fact many
may be more significant outside Europe. Thus, strong international collaboration is required to
successfully address them.
Europe does not lack talent and creativity for the Fourth Industrial Revolution but does lack a
market for them. However, young entrepreneurs, especially the most creative, often need to
migrate to large cities, and some move beyond Europe. At the same time, the most successful
high tech creative companies are struggling to grow or are likely to be bought by nonEuropean capital as, for example, Skype. There are almost no new multinational corporations
in Europe, while the US has generated Apple, Google, Facebook, and Amazon, each of which
has created new global markets, partially exploiting European talent, and dominating the
European consumer market. An important research and innovation issue to be addressed is
why has Europe failed to create the type of multinational corporations that will retain its best
and brightest brains and what are the implications both negative and positive -- for not doing
so? This may be a question of whether the upside of adopting an American style high tech
model outweighs the downside in terms of culture, values and social cohesion.
The predicted end of mass employment will also have an impact on governance and
democracy as we know it. Reverting the meaning of the American revolutionaries motto, no
representation without taxation, there might be temptations to question the right to vote of
people who have never paid taxes. As a result of the new digital economy, greater numbers of
young people do not fit neatly into traditional job markets, whilst the increasing incidence of
mobile and trans-national work makes it difficult both to pay taxes and to vote. Most of these
issues also have a considerable international dimension, for example in the context of the
likely Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), as well as existing WTO
arrangements.
34
4.
Governance for the future
4.1.
Understanding governance for the future
Governance can be defined as the manner in which a community of interdependent actors is

organised and/or organises itself through a set of formal and informal structures and
relationships, typically termed institutions. In the current context, although the main
governance actor is the public sector, all other legitimate societal actors have one or more
roles to play, and this configuration changes both across different political and legal
jurisdictions as well as through time in order to meet societal challenges. Given the processes
of democracy in Europe, critics of governance arrangements point to the inherent weaknesses
there are in responding rapidly to acute societal challenges the incidence of which is
increasing. On the other hand, proponents counter this by contending that democracy
significantly improves the effectiveness of public policy as well as its legitimacy and thus
acceptance by the population. This broad debate indeed needs to be one important focus of
governance research, i.e. how can the development of public policy be made more timely
whilst at the same time improving both its quality and legitimacy? How are the new
technologies affecting traditional institutions and the way they operate? How are younger
generations, heavily influenced by new technology in their mind-set and behaviour, relating to
such a change, and how can governance respond to, as well as include, these generations?
How can governance become inclusive encouraging participation from all groups of society,
including women? The governance issue thus needs to plays a specific role in H2020 SC6
research and innovation, as it underpins all other policy areas. Research and innovation
actions, therefore, should be both visionary and ambitious whilst also realistic and relevant.
The clash between the democracy paradigm championed by Europe and the alternative
autocratic top-down governance paradigm, as for example practised in Russia and China,
should be a central theme as it is increasingly becoming a global dialectic both in terms of
rhetoric and real politik. However, it needs to be specifically placed in the context of how
Europes governance can solve the challenge of marrying efficiency and timeliness, on the one
hand, with long-termism/continuity, inclusion and legitimacy, on the other. Is the present form
of democratic governance in Europe still fit for purpose, and is its inherent short-termism (to
some extent the result of the electoral cycle) adequate given the new long-term and perhaps
existential challenges Europe faces, as exemplified by the first two themes in this report?
Governance research and innovation need to examine the changing roles and relationships of
the different actors, such as the public sector itself, the private sector, civil society (both
formal and informal), academia and research institutions, as well as labour and employer
organisations. For example, the role of the private sector, in particular multinational
corporations, in shaping governance at all levels is crucial. This is not just a theoretical
question, but it is clear that large corporations not only affect governance but have also
become a source of innovation, for example the governance of the Internet has influence over
many other forms of governance. Similarly, civil society organisations are playing an increasing
role, for example acting as intermediaries on behalf of specific groups or localities which need
specific attention. Social entrepreneurship is also a new source of innovation as greater
numbers of young people are embracing it as the only chance to enter the job market.
One main focus area should be the notion of public value, broadly defined as the value created
by society mediated through governance activities providing services, laws, regulation and
other actions which are, in principle, available to all and which cannot be monopolised by
sectional interest. For the present purpose public value can also be thought of as similar to
35
related notions of public goods and good governance. Public value indeed needs to be seen
broadly, for example both in hard terms like utilities and infrastructures, as well as in a
softer context such as education, health and the environment, i.e. the social infrastructures.
Public value should also be directly linked to Europes societal challenges and high value goals
(such as the Europe 2020 Strategy and the Juncker Agenda), as well as to wider strategies and
especially the UNs 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda (agreed in September 2015) and
the Paris Climate Change Agreement reached in December 2015. (See also section 5.4.)
Changes in governance arrangements and how these create public value are becoming more
rapid and fluid both in Europe and elsewhere. For example, many non-public sector actors are
increasingly involved in the delivery of public value, and these are themselves also changing.
There are new types of businesses, such as the legal entity of Community Interest Companies
in the UK and social entrepreneurs, the emerging role of the creative industries sector as a
new unifier of creative domains and entrepreneurship, impact investing and open
manufacturing sectors, as well as the role of new technologies like ICT, blockchains and social
media. Moreover, in times of public finance austerity and cuts, many European countries are
relying increasingly on cheaper often voluntary civil society organisations to create and deliver
public services as well as to act as intermediaries with service users.
Other important governance research and innovation issues include:
How can Europes governance paradigm both acknowledge and then cope with the
shift from perceiving Europe as a single entity, which needs to become a more or less
uniform and homogeneous structure via a process of harmonisation, towards the
acceptance and accommodation of heterogeneity? Diversity, multi-culturalism and
identity are key issues, and research and innovation need to assist in providing better
means of addressing this challenge. This research issue is very important both as a
possible solution to the societal challenge of providing better governance in Europe,
and as a topic that can foster productive trans-disciplinary research and innovation
efforts within and between the social sciences and the humanities. Such an approach
would involve bridging the divide sometimes perceived between, respectively,
inclusive societies and innovative societies on the one hand, and reflective societies
on the other hand.
There are also important inter-generational elements here, given that Europes
(including its nation states) current form of democratic governance is not always
readily understood or accepted by the Millennials generation. There appears to be a
loss of interest, and even some disdain with all current forms of European governance,
especially in the context of the digital revolution which we are struggling to come to
terms with. A historical perspective is useful in this context given that, for example,
Europe faced a similar choice and conflict in the 1930s which could provide a basis for
better understanding.
4.2.
Historical perspectives
Historically there have been three main forms of governance, the earliest being the top-down
administrative and coercive model which has persisted through much of history, and which
since the early industrial revolution then accommodated the second more market-orientated
form of governance between sectional and competing interests. More recently a third main
form has emerged as networked governance which combines a much more bottom-up model
with greater degrees of cooperation and coordination. In practice, these three main forms and
36
their variants are typically seen alongside each other, and although they greatly simplify a
complex evolutionary history, they are often used in this way by contemporary researchers27.
Although tracing the development of European governance and administration in all its various
forms should take account of their origins during the Enlightenment, developments starting in
the late 1980s are perhaps the most relevant for understanding the current forms of
governance as well as governance for the future. At that time, a specific but still dominant
governance model appeared, i.e. New Public Management. This form of governance
emphasized market mechanisms, and inter alia how ICT could make the public sector much
more efficient by adopting private sector management disciplines which had already shown
how to maximise efficiency. This typically meant focusing on measurement, target setting and
the outsourcing of some government functions to the private sector which was deemed to be
more efficient in fulfilling them. There have been numerous reactions to this philosophy and
approach, such as reemphasising the role of professionals and public sector capacity building,
also supported by a stronger focus on research and innovation.
In the 2000s, other critics of New Public Management recognised a Public Value Management
model which linked the changes seen or required in the public sector to networked
government and the need for open systems to ensure that ICT and other new tools were not
only used to improve efficiency but also the effectiveness and reach of public services and
governance more generally. In turn, these led to the recognition of so-called transformational
governance arrangement, in which ICT in particular enables the wholesale restructuring and
repurposing of governance, and more latterly a very strong open governance philosophy and
approach. This was inducted into formal state policies by President Obamas Open
Government Directive in early 200928 alongside the launch of the global Open Government
Partnership29 aimed at establishing a global system of transparency, public participation and
collaboration as the three foundations of modern governance.
The present governance arrangements of Europe need to be seen in this context, and further
and deeper research and innovation are required to understand how appropriate forms of
governance for the future can be designed to meet Europes critical societal challenges. For
example, how have the principles of multi-level governance in Europe, like subsidiarity,
developed and what are their implications for current governance and its future development?
In particular, it is clear that the governance of the EU at all levels and in all sectors is today
experiencing perhaps its deepest crisis since its establishment. So understanding the way
forward toward a more resilient Europe is of profound importance.
For example, reflection on the identity and culture of different regions in Europe is needed in
order to develop systems of governance that are inclusive (resilient and able to utilize/employ
all resources) and innovative (able to adapt to new challenges and to exploit new
opportunities). Europe is diverse in terms of history, economic development, models of
governance, social conditions, local culture, etc., for example when comparing Germany,
Britain, France, Spain, Italy, Greece, the former centrally planned economies, and the
Scandinavian countries. These differences remain even after promoting political and economic
(and in some parts of Europe, monetary) integration, and other forms of harmonization. This
27
For example, United Nations (2013) Governance, Public Administration and Information Technology for Post-2015
Development,
United
Nations
Department
of
Social
and
Economic
Affairs
New
York:
http://workspace.unpan.org/sites/Internet/Documents/Governance_PA_Report.pdf.
28
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment/.
29
http://www.opengovpartnership.org.
37
heterogeneity must be understood in order to gain insight in how governance can and should
develop for the future.
Because of integration and external shocks (like globalization, technological progress and the
migration crisis), national and local European economies change rapidly, while social
conditions are adjusted in the same direction but with a significant time lag. Existing
differences therefore appear as more important and tensions easily arise. Within countries
there are also tensions between private and public systems so that European integration may
increase private prosperity whilst failing to provide robust systems for allocating resources for
public provisions and collective needs. Can a common European social model emerge in order
to remedy the gaps and inconsistencies? Is more harmonisation beneficial and, if so, how can it
be induced? What is the role of diversity for European resilience and how can cultural and
institutional diversity be balanced with economic integration?
4.3.
4.3.1.
European governance challenges and opportunities

Trust, trustworthiness and legitimacy
It is important to broaden the terms of the discussion on trust which traditionally focuses only
on the analysis of public trust in government. However, governance for the future needs also
to address issues relevant to new forms and emerging perspectives of trust, such as trust in
societies and multi-dimensional trust, i.e. trust in citizens by governments and trust among
people. Lessons might be learnt from other areas, such but specifically not restricted to the
changing discussion on trust in the context of the sharing economy, which in some
manifestations rests on common or shared ownership of assets. Here, for example, trust may
be built through the threat of losing individual reputation especially when living in a closely
connected community, whether physical, virtual or a mix of both. A recent European
conference addressed many of these wider issues, including trust in others, trust of European
citizens in public authorities, trust between employers and employees, and trust in a shared
common European future.30
It will also be important for research and innovation actions to focus on trustworthiness in
governance. Quite often, there is a demand for more public trust, but what is actually needed
might instead be more trustworthiness which needs to be both earned and demonstrated by
government. After all, why should citizens trust untrustworthy governance or business
models? Although it is impossible to build totally trustworthy governance, and this also
presents dangers where some healthy scepticism might be a better goal in a democratic
society, it is important to examine how actors (including governments) might achieve
trustworthiness. How can they legitimately, transparently and openly earn the trust of other
actors, and what is the role of ICT in, for example, new conceptions and measures of trust? Is
passivity by citizens an acceptable response even when governments actively attempt to
become trustworthy? It is also relevant to examine the adaptive or evolutionary capacity of
governance trust in order to counteract the possible disintegration of social bonds, for
example under the pressure of different types of technological impact, and how these might
self-regenerate and/or self-reorganise to become more resilient.
Trust in and by governments also both reflects and helps determine the legitimacy or
otherwise of governance. What make decisions on public policy and the implementation of
30
Trust: European Research Co-creating Resilient Societies, Brussels, 29 - 30 October 2015: http://www.trustconference.eu/
38
those policies legitimate in the eyes of the public? In an era characterised by the increasing
diffusion of political power and supranational decision-making, traditional theories on the
sources of political legitimacy seem to have lost a great deal of explanatory power. New
theoretical and empirical tools are needed to understand and explain why some states seem
successful in creating legitimacy, while others struggle with substantial legitimacy deficits. Is
the quality of processes on both the input-side of the political system (such as transparency
and citizen involvement) and on the output-side (such as the ability of states to perform basic
output functions like impartial implementation of public policy and control of political and
bureaucratic corruption) key when it comes to building, sustaining and supporting legitimacy?
Challenges to trust in governance are also manifest in different contexts and across different
groups. For example: an increasingly disenfranchised middle class and middle aged group more
of whom are joining populist movements; an indifferent youth who do not trust public
institutions and the societal status quo more generally; and migrants who do not know who to
trust and how to take part in future governance.
A good example of the continuum of causal relationship illustrated by the trust debate is given
by fiscal policy and the quality of public finances. In order to create public value, governments
have to invest in tangible and intangible assets, in people and with efficiency. Investments
must be financed by savings, by the governments themselves which is quite challenging, or by
credit which has been the engine of growth historically. The lack of trust and the
trustworthiness of governments after the crisis have closed the door to this credit channel,
exemplified by Greece but also by many other countries that are structurally underinvesting.
Europes Stability and Growth Pact and the Fiscal Compact are built on this lack of trust. It is
difficult to change them before restoring trust in the whole edifice of fiscal governance in
Member States and in EU institutions. At the same time, public opinion is worried about the
level of public debt and the constraints of the Pact, especially the impossibility to finance
investment by loans. Research and innovation are needed to better understand these
relationships and the role and determinants of trust in government and its ability to repay
debts and launch an efficient investment programme. Public opinion is also sceptical about
governments ability to collect taxes due, in particular, from multinational firms, which of
course might be one way for the public sector to start to rebalance its books.
Related key research and innovation questions to be addressed in this context could include:
Why and how is trust in governance shifting or is mistrust just becoming more visible?
Are there more adequate tools of governance, e.g. legal and regulatory framework or
participatory democratic processes that can help increase trustworthiness and trust?
What are the roles of justice and fairness for trustworthiness and trust?31
How are public sector accountability and transparency affecting trust and
trustworthiness?
How do different forms of stakeholder involvement, participation, lobbying and
advocacy affect trust and the trustworthiness of political processes?
What are the relationship between legitimacy, accountability, responsibility, trust and
trustworthiness?
What is the impact of openness, such as implied by open government and social
media, on trustworthiness and trust? Is there a correlation between unprecedented
levels of openness and unprecedented mistrust in government?
Can and should trust in the governance context be measured?
How are technologies affecting trust (e.g. block chain or social media platforms)?
31
See Edelman Trust Barometer http://www.edelman.com/insights/intellectual-property/2016-edelman-trustbarometer/
39
How can trust and trustworthiness be increased in the domain of (national) security?
Must openness on the one hand, and lack of transparency on the other, be balanced
for governance to be effective, especially in the context of security?
There are also challenges and opportunities emerging from new forms of collaborative and
open governance and participatory processes, such as participatory budgeting. In this context,
ideas concerning the need for a new social contract become important. One, perhaps
restrictive definition, might see such a contract as embedded in the body politic, law-giving
and duties between government, citizens and other stakeholders such as business culture and
the sharing of benefits.
4.3.2.
New challenges and opportunities for policy- and decision-making
A key policy question to be addressed by European governance, which is also very important
for innovation, concerns the creation of public value through common goods and services, and
the shift from state monopoly to multi-stakeholder funding and management leading to new
institutions and incentives. An important research and innovation focus should thus be
European and global public goods creation32 beyond the monopoly of state provision. New
approaches to govern contemporary societies are necessary, given the conjunction of
creativity, new technologies and entrepreneurship, and governments will need to build
platforms to support this. Such platforms in the context of the open governance philosophy
will require new forms of so-called open policy making, i.e. as more effective policy making
through broadening the range of people engaged, using the latest analytical techniques, and
taking an agile, iterative approach to implementation. Open policy-making is an important part
of the wider concept of open governance systems, which are already emerging, albeit on a
small scale as scattered but prominent examples, particularly at local and especially city level
where power and control is increasingly being devolved, decentralised and even, in some
cases, usurped by different constellations of actors. These developments, although still
incipient, can be partially captured by the concept of the government as a platform, i.e. an
open environment and ecosystem with clear frameworks, guidelines, resources and supports
which invites all actors to collaborate in producing public value, for example through open
innovations. (See also sections 4.4 and 4.5.)
A new crisis of decision-making in Europe is emerging both from the recent migration surge as
well as from the on-going questioning of the so-called democratic deficit many observe at all
levels of governance, which in turn impacts relationships between citizens and systems of
governing. In this sense, handling challenges associated with migration may be a matter
pertaining to the very nature and development of the multi-level configuration that makes up
the EU. Migration, in other words, encompasses not only issues of policy and politics but also
of polity and constitution. An important research focus in this context would be the extent to
which the recent crises have changed policy- and decision-making in the EU, with particular
emphasis on legislative politics. Research and innovation projects could focus on the effects of
the crises on coalition-formation and voting-cohesion in the European Parliament and the
Council as well as coalition-formation across the institutions. In addition, research and
innovation could look at the effects of the crises on legislation, its nature, efficiency, and
national parliamentary involvement in transposition.
32
See for example Barrett, S (2007). Why Cooperate? The Incentive to Supply Global Public Goods. NY, Oxford
University Press.
40
4.3.3.
Radicalisation and terrorism
The terrorist attacks that have recently hit Europe present a stark and serious challenge to the
continents security, social cohesion and democracy. Such attacks are intended to strike at the
core of European societies, national governments and EU institutions, and to question
Europes principles of religious diversity, tolerance, freedom of speech and human rights. It has
been estimated that at least some 4,000 individuals have travelled from Western European
countries to fight in Syria and Iraq, a war zone that has allegedly mobilised the largest number
of foreign fighters since 1945, well over 20,000 in total33. According to the Swedish
government, members of the extreme right have also joined the war in Ukraine. Many
governments consider returning foreign fighters as a serious domestic security threat.
However, the vast majority of the current European terrorists are second and third generation
immigrants coming originally from North Africa. It is also the case that radicalisation and
terrorism are not simply European phenomena, nor are they new. There are currently much
worse terrorist atrocities in the Middle East and elsewhere, and Europe has a recent terrorist
history in places like Northern Ireland, the Basque country, Italy and Germany, whilst there are
also recent examples of majority community terrorism such as in Norway.
Nevertheless, this current terrorist phenomenon in Europe has many new features, so
research is needed to understand its development through a strongly historical and
contextualised approach, which must also focus on providing clear evidence for policy making
and effective initiatives, including through international cooperation. There is a need to
undertake multi-disciplinary research on the processes of radicalisation, whether or not this
leads to terrorism and, if so, how? For example, research questions might include what is
known about the terrorists? How do especially young Europeans become radicalised? What
are the links between radicalisation and terrorism? Why do terrorists perpetrate such acts and
what are their aims?34
There is also an urgent need for research on the role of social and other digital media in terms
of globalising radicalisation. Individuals no longer have to physically encounter radical
elements but can become radicalised online, nor do they simply need to imagine a radical
future when stark images are provided by the Hollywood style production techniques
deployed by some terrorist groups. New technologies enable the customisation, not only of
goods but also of belief systems, so that radicalism becomes personalised, also through online
courses in terrorist techniques. Many governments are launching preventive efforts to counter
violent extremist narratives circulating online, but there are few or no substantial empirical
findings supporting the notion of causal effects between online propaganda and violent
extremism.
4.3.4.
Legal and regulatory frameworks
A strong focus is needed on examining how Europes legal and regulatory frameworks are
coping with current needs and crises and how these can be adapted for future governance.
Comparative research on legal systems and policy- and decision-making frameworks is
required, for example in relation to how these might limit or provide opportunities for the
flexibility of governance systems in relation to migration and the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
In this context, research and innovation should contribute to ensuring that Europe does not
simply replicate current legal and governance frameworks which may have been suitable in the
33
Neuman, P (2015) The New Jihadists: ISIS, Europa and the Next Wave of Terrorism, published by Econ, Berlin.
See Addressing Terrorism: European Research in Social Sciences and the Humanities in Support to Policies for
Inclusion and Security -- a Policy Review, published vy the European Commission, 2016.
34
41
past, for example in relation to trust, the sharing economy or new digital opportunities, but
instead examines new approaches which could be more beneficial for a dynamic, cohesive and
fair economy and society in the future. An example from past challenges might be the early
years of electronic government during the 1990s and early 2000s during which public
administrators merely digitised existing bureaucracies rather than examining opportunities to
update them. In this context, an examination may also be needed concerning the desirability
of reforming the legal institutions governing market structure, market behaviour and the
organisation of business, as well as of natural resources and the environment. Rules, at
national and/or European level, might have to be redesigned to foster innovation and
entrepreneurship in markets that are increasingly globalised, dynamic and competitive, based
on new human capital-intensive industries and aimed at environmental sustainability.
4.4.
4.4.1.
The digital transformation of governance

How ICT can change governance
The use of ICT and related new technologies to change the way both the public sector and the
wider issues of governance, function and are structured, goes back at least to the 1980s.
Initially governments embraced online government which simply took ICT, largely from the
private sector, into an existing system making it more efficient but without much change to its
structures and modus operandi. The subsequent notion of transformative government
stressed how ICT could be used alongside other drivers to transform these characteristics of
government so that they became not only more efficient but also more effective. In turn,
smaller and less active, or lean government, enabled by ICT, was a dramatic response to the
financial and economic crisis in the aftermath of 2007-8 based on austerity, downsizing and
cuts to public services.
Today, research and innovation on the practice of open government and open governance
systems using ICT tools is starting to form a cohesive conceptual framework, body of evidence
and policy programme to return the attention of government to the burgeoning long-term
societal challenges both Europe and the world are facing in close collaboration with non-public
actors. Indeed, some of these challenges have resulted directly from the financial crisis itself
and many governments immediate response to it, but governance in many contexts is now
seeking to become more proactive again by stressing the important synergies between
operational efficiencies and outcome effectiveness working in harmony.
4.4.2.
ICT-enabled public sector and open governance
ICT-enabled public sector innovation and new forms of governance are today central tenets of
much European e-government policy at all levels: European, national and local and especially
at city scale where ICT is a central driver of smart cities and the smart services they are
offering. Strategies for public policy making and public services are focusing on becoming more
open and innovative as well as efficient and effective, and indeed it is argued that these
attributes are complementary, but also that the public sector cannot successfully tackle these
challenges entirely on its own. It needs to collaborate with other actors, and a powerful tool in
this context is ICT.
However, strong research and innovation efforts are needed to support both policy and
initiatives as widespread take-up and action on the ground is lacking. For example, open
42
government is one of the main pillars of ICT-enabled public sector innovation35, based on open
data, open services and open processes. However, for this to be realised, a broader open
governance framework is also necessary, which both reaches across many parts and levels of
the public sector as well as to other appropriate actors outside government. In many contexts,
open governance is about linking and integrating the worlds inside government, as well as
linking and integrating these with the worlds outside government for the specific purpose of
creating public value. ICT is a key enabler in making this possible.
Open governance also requires opening up structures and public organisations through open
processes enabling transparency, accountability and trust; public participation which also
supports new forms of dispersed democratic involvement; and widespread collaboration with
other actors which can contribute to creating public value. In turn, this involves breaking
down, or at least cooperation between, silos across different administrations, levels and
locations, through sharing infrastructures, processes, data, assets, resources, content and
tools. This presages huge challenges technically, politically, legally, organisationally and in
terms of working cultures. The vision is a whole-of-government approach embedded in and
interacting with the reality of society as a whole. What is proposed is a broad open
governance framework strategy going forward to 2020 and beyond. Such a strategy would
attempt to develop the policies and tools to put into practice an open governance vision,
underpinned by appropriate research and innovation actions.
Three priority research and innovation topics are recommended:
The open government setting: given that government cannot address societal
problems on its own, it needs to collaborate openly, transparently and participatively
using ICT, both within and across the public sector and with all legitimate external
actors. Greater understanding is needed of how shared services (across government
and with non-government actors) can be developed through co-creation, and rolled
out in order to improve take-up, personalisation and impact. Standards are required
for this, open by default, not only in technical terms such as semantic interoperability,
but also to support quality of service standards to ensure universality and cross-border
applicability where appropriate, for example through procurement, planning and
decision-making. It is not clear how these objectives can be achieved and what specific
roles the government should play as compared to other actors, particularly in the
digital context. How to ensure that privacy and security issues are adequately taken
into account also needs careful research and innovation.
Government as a platform: for example as an open source service platform in the
cloud providing government services, data and enablers as building blocks, also needs
a concerted research and innovation effort, as this promises significant increases in
both efficiency and effectiveness. Research and innovation need to examine both
digital and non-digital platforms, as well as their inter-relationships, to support the
creation of public value through co-creation with other actors, so better understanding
is needed as to how government can adapt its roles as facilitator and orchestrator, to
provide appropriate tools and supports including big open and linked data (BOLD), to
better manage assets, and to ensure sustainability and balanced public value.
Experience has shown that it is often at city level that governments are successfully
experimenting with these new roles especially enabled by ICT, so research and
innovation need to examine how such practices can become more widespread at a
variety of governance levels and across different national, political and cultural
35
European Commission (2013) A vision for public services, prepared by DG CONNECT after an expert workshop
and open public consultation: http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/vision-public-services.
43
contexts. Again, due account needs to be taken of privacy and security issues. (See also
section 4.5).
Research and innovation are required into the likely impact and take-up of emerging
technologies on the roles and operations of government, as well as of the public sector
more generally. Many of these emerging technologies have potentially significant
implications for the way governance for the future is configured and experienced, for
example block chain distributed databases, artificial intelligence, robotics, the Internet
of Things (IoT), quantum computing and hyper-connectivity, drone technology, etc. An
examination of potential side-effects and likely unintended consequences is also
required. The impact of blockchain technology in particular on governance systems
could be profound and lead to the end of governance as we have known it for
millennia to be replaced by, in effect, an autonomous and independent system to
which everyone can contribute to and benefit from, but which no one controls. There
might be immense democratic benefits arising from such a scenario, but also dangers
inherent in the fact that blockchains are, in effect, an impenetrable black box.
Research and innovation are also needed to understand key new tasks and challenges which
are implicit in these changes, including:
The role of data, for example as BOLD (big open linked data) and data analytics that
can play a pivotal role to help design policies for more inclusive, reflective and
innovative societies and to foster more evidence-informed governance, as well as
made available for use by companies, civil organisation and individuals.
Transparency and data protection.
The so-called digital natives, or Millennials, as well as future generations who have
grown up with the Internet approach to society, including governance, in entirely new
ways compared with the older generations.
Possible social disintegration depending on technological developments.
Social media and the challenge this poses for trust and trustworthiness.
Moves towards the adoption of the once only principle36 so that personal data once
entered into any part of the public sector can be re-used by other parts without reentry. It has been demonstrated that this can significantly cut the costs of, for
example, e-services and provide much greater convenience for users, but at the
possible risk of loss of data privacy and data mis-use which also affects trust in
government. The use of secure online e-signatures is likely to be very important in this
context and enable users better to control their own data, including whether to allow
governments or other actors to use it.
Also moves towards digital by default37, whereby relevant services are only made
available to users through automatic self-service digital channels. Again, huge cost
savings can be made for the public sector, allowing it to redeploy resources to other
areas. However, this poses real risks of increasing the so-called digital divide whereby
people with poor access and low incomes, education and skills are more likely to be
excluded from accessing essential services, and these groups are precisely those who
tend to need such services most. One possible solution is to redeploy some of the
savings made to provide specific service support to such groups including non-digitally
where relevant.
36
European Commission (2014) Study on eGovernment and the Reduction of Administrative Burden:
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/final-report-study-egovernment-and-reduction-administrativeburden-smart-20120061.
37
Op cit.
44
Digital services are also starting to be made available across borders at European level,
and this could provide much greater convenience and access to European citizens and
companies, as well as support the Digital Single Market.
The level and quality of data accessibility across society.
The last point reveals some of the very important implications of digital technology on
governance for the future, such as:
Issues of physical access to data (open versus closed data, data in public/private
realms)
Issues of competence (who can assess data quality and the inferences made upon this
data, who can inspect data, can citizens correct false data about themselves, etc.)
The possibility of discrimination resulting from opaque data practices in governance,
but also in the business sector, and how to avoid this via hard and soft law,
governance by (IT) design
Other implications of data practices for societal values, such as privacy, freedom of
speech and association, etc.
What are the opportunities and dangers of governance by (IT) design, (hidden)
nudging, etc.?
There are also challenges resulting from the possibility of overreliance on big data, algorithms
and expert systems in governance and public policy making. For example, AI and policy
modelling algorithms raise the prospect of decisions being made which are impenetrable to
human understanding and hence control. In this context, research and innovation are needed
to examine the different roles that BOLD and the algorithms generated from it play. There
should also be an examination of the roles played by data-generated scientific findings to
provide facts and evidence, on the one hand, and the roles of opinion, vision and political
persuasion on the other. The role of science providing the best evidence, and how it performs
this task in an open manner (e.g. also through citizen science), is critical for good governance.
Research and innovation are also needed into user-friendly digital services which help connect
public administrations across Europe and facilitate the re-use of open data, open services and
open processes. These open government principles should operate in an open governance
framework in which citizens, businesses, civil society, social partners and other stakeholders
play a key role. Citizen involvement in the production of collaborative services is a priority
area, and in this context open data should be seen as an untapped resource with a huge
potential for building stronger, more interconnected societies. ICT is needed to support the
modernisation of public services, however, for this to succeed, the open government
framework needs to be supported by a strong ICT backbone, interoperability and a
transformation towards re-usable, modular public services.
Thus, research and innovation should also focus on supporting the CEF (Connecting Europe
Facility) programme in moving towards an Interconnected Europe, by promoting broadband
connectivity for all European households, and by facilitating the interoperability of European
public administrations. The CEF is aiming to provide Digital Services Infrastructures (DSIs),
which are generic building blocks that can be re-used (such as e-invoicing and e-signatures) as
well as interoperable online services for citizens, businesses and public administrations. In this
context, sector-specific DSIs such as e-procurement, better Internet for children, etc., are
important. If the goal is to build a European ecosystem of public services, appropriate research
and innovation are required.
45
4.5.
Changing roles and relationships in European governance
To meet these challenges there is a need for more research and innovation on the conflicts
between plurality, stability and change. There are two sets of basic research and innovation
questions. The first relates to the interplay between institutional cooperation and economic
and social competition. The second concerns the sustainability of social and cultural habits and
society models. For both sets it is important to investigate how the social sustainability of local
society arrangements is affected by harmonisation within the EU and by economic and political
integration within the EU and as part of the global economy. Are society models stable? Is it
possible to increase integration and also have a plurality of social and cultural arrangements in
each nation state? To maintain European institutions and culture, is it more promising to
stabilise these arrangements across a group of countries, or within each country individually?
Research and innovation are needed to better understand and support the government as a
platform philosophy mentioned above. This could have the task of supporting innovation
across society as a whole, and to facilitate public value creation in the most efficient and
effective way possible through open and collaborative innovation. It is a strategy that places
the government as a platform for others to build upon in an open environment and ecosystem
that sees everyone, every community and every organisation potentially as a resource with
assets to create public value. Assets is a wide term encompassing for example finance, time,
skills, competences, knowledge, data, tools, buildings, spaces, vehicles, materials, energy,
facilities of all types and organisational capacities, many of which are enabled by ICT
developments like crowdsourcing and crowd-funding. Not using assets which could otherwise
be put to productive use may be seen as tantamount to wasting them, so government as a
platform has a task to pool and leverage the assets of others, together with its own, to address
societal challenges ethically and fairly. This enables government to supplement the challenge
of itself having sometimes to do more for less by being able to orchestrate doing more with
more by helping to leverage more assets from across society38.
Within this context, research and innovation should be undertaken concerning how the public
sector can build its capacity in a number of specific areas. First, the ability to facilitate,
orchestrate and support societal value creation regardless of which legitimate actors are
involved, through for example regulation, arbitration, coordination, mediation and partnering.
However, the government retains a specific set of roles, which cannot be performed by other
actors, and often needs to lead or sanction such activity given that it:
has a democratic mandate to take account of all interests in society which other actors
do not have.
must take account and balance all such interests.
cannot choose the people it serves given that its services need to be universal, unlike
other actors.
has ultimate responsibility for public service quality and reach regardless of which
other actors are involved.
is the supplier of last resort.
Second, research and innovation are required as to how the public sector can curate the
demand side of government as a platform by, for example, providing appropriate tools to
enable the involvement of other actors, such as guidelines, incentives, supports, advice, data,
information, knowledge, networks and ecosystems. Given that when beneficiaries and other
actors are involved, such as through co-creation, collaboration, participation, self-service and
38
Millard, J (2016) Open governance systems: doing more with more, in Government Information Quartly, Summer.
46
self-support, this in effect out-sources some public sector responsibility, so the extra burden
placed on these actors needs to be eased and made as simple as possible.
Third, research and innovation should look at how societys assets can be managed in a legal,
ethical and fair manner. This involves identifying legitimate and available assets across society,
and helping to orchestrate and deploy them to create public value in collaboration with the
asset owners. Widely used content management systems need to be supplemented by asset
management systems.
Finally, the public sector has the unique role that it is the only actor which can ensure
sustainability and balanced public value so that all segments of society benefit and where
trade-offs are seen as fair and proportionate. Research and innovation are therefore needed in
the dual role of governance, i.e. how the public sector can balance being innovative and
flexible on the one hand, with providing longer term stability and continuity which other actors
cannot do, on the other. This is necessary to enable people and communities to live stable
lives, as well as for the market to have confidence that unpredictable governance changes will
not upset their own innovation and investment decisions.
4.6.
recommendations made above for the major theme of governance for the future.
4.6.1.
Gender
Governance policies, decision-making, legal and regulatory frameworks, etc., largely determine
many of the system characteristics within which European society operates and is structured,
both formally and informally. Much of this is historical legacy from periods when gender
differences were often strongly reinforced and when women were subject to significant
exclusion in most walks of life, both domestically and in the public sphere. Although many
formal structures reinforcing these mind-sets have since been dismantled in Europe, much still
needs to be done and many vested traditional attitudes remain which still erect significant
barriers making it difficult for women to lead full, equal and active lives. Gender issues are thus
central to the governance debate, not least because in almost all European countries, female
politicians are in a small minority and are thus in practice largely on the edge of political power
and influence, despite making up half of the population. The few exceptions include Norway
where all main parties have a mandatory 40% minimum of women members of the national
parliament. These issues require focused research and innovation in order to assist in changing
the balance of governance power in European societies.
4.6.2.
Ethics and values
The role of public governance as the commons of society, potentially representing social
solidarity and cooperation, and its juxtaposition with the private realm of property,
competition and consumption, is directly related to societal values and ethics, for example as
related to inequalities, and how these are changing. Research and innovation actions should
examine important aspects of this, for example how the European social model can be
developed for the future governance of the EU at all levels, anchored in updated values of
social protection, social cohesion and solidarity. Existing principles of subsidiarity and
participation need to be reinforced as a precondition for a sustainable social market economy.
Ethical considerations also mandate fully inclusive policies through, for example, the active
47
involvement of people in the formulation as well as implementation of European policies, on

the basis that democratic participation in EU processes is decisive for the future of Europe as
the EU tries to regain its peoples trust. Synergy effects not only exist in partnership between
EU Institutions and Member States, but also in the active involvement of other stakeholders
like the social partners and civil society, including religious communities.
4.6.3.
Digital
As explained in detail in section 4.4, digital technology provides the tools to transform most if
not all aspects of governance and the public sector, enabling for the first time widespread
collaboration and participation in public affairs, offering highly efficient and effective public
services online, as well as generating and distributing big open data and big data analytics for
better decision-making and as the soil of new economic activity. ICT is a critical and
fundamental enabler of governance for the future, and new research and innovation actions
are needed to experiment with, and better understand, in particular the implications for
governance of some of the new technologies now emerging. As described earlier, these
include artificial intelligence, machine-learning, robotics, the Internet of Things (IoT), quantum
computing and hyper-connectivity, block chain technology and drone technology.
4.6.4.
Europes 2020 Strategy identifies smart, sustainable and inclusive growth as well as the
governance levers and arrangements to deliver this. In terms of the governance of sustainable
development, the 2008 crisis exposed fundamental problems and unsustainable trends in
many European countries. It also made clear just how interdependent the EU countries social,
economic and environmental development paths are. Greater policy coordination across the
EU is necessary to address sustainable development consisting of growth, jobs, social cohesion
and environmental sustainability for the future. The coordination of multi-level governance,
policy- and decision-making from local to EU levels is needed to implement these overarching
long-term strategies, and must be supported by appropriate research and innovation actions.
Questions might include how institutional relationships between private, public and civil actors
need to be arranged to make the sustainable development of modern societies possible?
Which institutions are needed for a sustainable society? Which types of institutional and
societal settings are needed to make governance itself more sustainable?
These European concerns are very closely aligned with the United Nations Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) which include for the first time a focus on promoting peaceful and
inclusive societies through good governance, as well as strengthening the means of
implementation through greater institutional capacity and collaboration with all relevant
actors. To deliver the SDGs by 2030, innovative shifts are required which focus on the
participation and inclusion of people, partnerships amongst all actors, gender responsiveness
and improvements to risk and disaster management. In turn, these require capacity
development and strong leadership across the public sector, as well as rethinking the scope of
basic public services as defined in the SDGs, and the use of new technology, especially ICT.
These governance issues underpinning the SDGs align closely with the Europe 2020 Strategy
and H2020 and require that research and innovation actions directly take then into account.
4.6.5.
Increasingly, the existential societal challenges faced by Europe are shared with the rest of the
world and cannot be contained within, or excluded from, European borders, whether these
48
include climate change, pollution, terrorism or international law and treaties. Europe as a unit
needs to exercise soft power in such contexts, whether or not it develops its hard power
capabilities in cooperation with NATO and other allies. Research and innovation are therefore
needed to address issues relevant to the role of Europe in the world, much of which should
involve international collaboration, with key questions such as:
The role of Europe in a multi-level governance environment:
Cross-border dimensions.
Local including city-levels, as well as marginal and rural areas.
Multicultural/cultural diversity within countries (e.g. different levels of openness
towards social and cultural integration of various societies).
Social/political interaction between the EU and incoming aspiring Member States,
such as Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova.
The rise of Asia: challenges and opportunities for Europe.
Centralisation versus decentralisation trends, and the role played by the changing
societal context within countries, for example the growing importance of cities
(smart cities) in sub-national systems, as well as the brain drain phenomenon
and, as a possible consequence, residual retired societies at national levels.
Conflicts, crisis and the role of the EU and other inter-governmental and trans-national
organisations like the UN, the WTO, the WB and IMF, the OECD, the International
Court of Justice, etc.
Diversities of societal contexts and the relation of these with European governance
and the European dimension.
How different inequalities are handled by the different forms of government.
The pursuit of good governance (see section 5.4) is, of course, relevant for the government
actor, but also for corporates, civil organisations, and in fact, for all governance systems across
society, including trade associations, international bodies like the UN, WTO, etc. The issue of
fairness, tax and tax havens, especially in the aftermath of the so-called Panama papers, is
also of high relevance in the good governance context. It can also be linked to the issue of
ensuring risks and benefits are well distributed in the Fourth industrial Revolution theme, as
well as to the cross-cutting issue of inequality, poverty and fairness. In turn, there are links to
issues of justice, legal instruments, the rule of law and institutions like the European Court of
Justice, and how these need to change to cope with the evolving Europe. One example might
be the re-establishment of physical border controls in response to the migrant crisis.
Over recent decades, the competences of EU governance have been considerably increased. In
the same period many important global issues have been entrusted to specialised
International Organisations (IOs). These two trends have produced a growing need for the EU
to be well represented in the relevant IO in order to promote its objectives and work together
to solve global challenges, including the migration and refugee crisis. Research and innovation
in the context of governance in its global dimension should also examine the deep relationship
between governance, migration and economic transformation. The migration and refugee
crises are ultimately the product of governance failures in both EU and non-EU countries,
whilst economic transformation is a global phenomenon ultimately led by markets so only
indirectly within the scope of governance. In both cases, the EU needs to work with IOs such as
the UN and WTO together with all the other non-state actors. Research and innovation could
highlight the nature of this system of systems as global system science to assist policy makers
engaged with multi-level governance.
49
5.
Cross-cutting issues and synergies
In addition to the three major themes presented above, the SC6 EAG also proposes a number
cross-cutting issues transversing as red threads across them in order to:
Assist in both linking the three major themes together and prioritising an
interdisciplinary approach.
Help ensure a coherent Work Programme and guard against fragmentation.
Provide an opportunity for minority views that might be outside the mainstream
through opening the programme to independent and dissenting views which are often
the source of system change and generators of paradigm shift.
Five cross-cutting issues have been identified: gender; ethics and values; digital; sustainable
development; and Europe in the world and international collaboration. Each of these should
be systematically addressed so that their inherent cross-theme synergies and interrelations
can be adequately exploited. Treating them separately is likely to miss important opportunities
for coherent and high quality research and innovation.
5.1.
Gender
In H2020 to date, the framing of gender equality is implemented in an unclear and generally
unformulated way, for example by only generally mentioning the integration of gender
equality into the content of research and innovation, or related merely to diversity issues and
included as just one aspect of socio-economic inequality. The structural understanding of
gender in relation to inequality and as part of inter-sectionality, is mainly left untouched.
Whilst gender has been incorporated into some social dimension issues, it is all too often
ignored or seen as less important than other inequalities, such as age, young people,
immigrants, as well as ethnic, cultural or linguistic minorities. Gender is not systematically
mainstreamed into each call or through the research cycle of applications (e.g. from research
and innovation planning through developing methods and tools for implementation, to
evaluation). No information on monitoring gender equality is available in the research and
innovation programmes, and there is a general lack of gender expertise. Neither is gender
mainstreamed into the evaluation criteria which also undermines the efficacy of the constantly
repeated sentence: gender issues should be taken into consideration in research and
innovation applications. This all leads to no attention being paid to the need for transformative
change in the gendered nature of institutions, norms and structures, so that institutions are
described as neutral.
In the Gender Advisory Groups report for the H2020 2016-17 programme the dimensions are
described as: The gender dimension is a dynamic concept which puts researchers at the
forefront of questioning gender norms and stereotypes, and addresses the evolving needs and
social roles of women and men. Depending on the field of research, it entails an analysis of
gender, sex or both. Gender is a key analytical and explanatory variable in research and
innovation. Gender as a socio-cultural process refers to cultural values and social attitudes that
together shape and sanction feminine and masculine behaviours, and also affect products,
technologies, environments, and knowledge. Gender assumptions often go unquestioned and
can unconsciously influence scientific priorities, research and innovation questions, and choice
of methods. Sex refers to biological characteristics of women and men, boys and girls, in terms
of reproductive organs and functions based on chromosomal complement and physiology. Sex
is globally understood as the classification of living beings as male, female or inter-sexed. Sex
differences relevant to research and innovation should be investigated and addressed.
50
Addressing these shortcomings in research and innovation actions is seen as paramount for a
successful programme. For example, far from most gender challenges having been addressed,
there are many other more subtle issues and system biases which may be just as pervasive and
corrosive. Important issues in this context might be the relationship between gender
inequalities as foundations for other forms of inequality, gender insecurity and the perceptions
of womens role in different areas of life.
In terms of implementing gender sensitive issues into research and innovation projects, three
areas may be important:
Research and innovation actions addressing gender issues, explicitly and systematically
embedded in projects where the issues have acknowledged relevance to the underlying
research topics. Project proposals that have thought this through systematically should be
more highly rated in evaluations.
Training should include requirements to raise awareness of gender issues within the
substance of the training and target an appropriately-balanced mix of trainees.
Where the connections between gender-issues and the underlying research area are not
so obvious or acknowledged, some fraction of research (possibly within independent
research and innovation projects or support actions), should aim to investigate the extent
to which gender issues exist but are not widely realised.
5.2.
Ethics and values
Ethics and values are fundamental building blocks horizontally across all H2020 research and
innovation, and SSH has specific responsibility to ensure they are both recognised and
enacted. In relation to values, the European Commission stated in 2009 that the crisis that we
face is not just a financial or an economic crisis. It is also a crisis for the values of our
societies.39 There has since been some disappointment that this value basis of the EU has not
been adequately followed through, and it has been suggested that a fourth key priority (in
addition to smart, sustainable and inclusive growth) be added to the Europe 2020 Strategy40,
i.e. implementing fundamental rights and values in a sustainable social market economy.
Recognising and tackling inequalities is also an important European value, particularly when
this leads to relative poverty and other forms of deprivation, marginalisation or vulnerability,
resulting in the individuals effected not being able to participate fully in social, economic and
cultural life. In terms of ethics, these arise in most areas of research and innovation, including
in the medical field, research protocols in social sciences, ethnography, psychology,
environmental studies and security research. Each of these can involve the voluntary
participation of research subjects and the collection of data that might be considered as
sensitive and where there is always a danger than research and innovation results can be
falsified and/or misused.
5.3.
Digital
H2020 supports innovation, research and technological development, with the latter focused
on digital technologies in the form of ICT and on most of the new technologies of the Fourth
Industrial Revolution which ICT underpins. Many H2020 and related EU actions target the
development and application of key enabling and industrial technologies as well as future and
emerging technologies. In this context, an important role of SC6 is to ensure that SSH is
39
Jos Manuel Barroso. Political guidelines for the next Commission. Brussels, September 2009, p. 1.
http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/president/pdf/press_20090903_EN.pdf
40
For example: http://csc.ceceurope.org/fileadmin/filer/csc/Social_Economic_Issues/Conference_of_
European_Churches __CSC_of_CEC__Contribution_to_EU_2020_Consultation.pdf
51
present at all stages in the research and innovation chain with a focus on value creation and
accelerating the development of technologies for innovative products, processes and services
where ICT is the critical enabler. It provides essential infrastructures for production and
business processes, communication and transactions, as well as for societal processes such as
community formation, consumer behaviour, political participation and public governance, for
example by means of social media and collective-awareness platforms and tools. ICT is crucial
for supporting and integrating research and innovation which takes a user-centred perspective
in order to develop both monetized/competitive and non-monetised solutions.
5.4.
As key cross-cutting Horizon 2020 objectives, climate action and sustainable development are
also relevant to SC6. At least 35% of Horizon 2020's total budget is expected to address climate
action, while at least 60% is expected to involve sustainable development. SC6 research and
innovation can contribute to combatting and mitigating climate change by integrating climate
action into specific policy activities, developing capacity, and strengthening the regulatory and
policy framework. Also highly important are the socio-economic issues associated with climate
change options, such as behavioural patterns, societal acceptance and barriers to the uptake
of policies or technologies.41
These European concerns are very closely aligned with the seventeen Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) agreed In September 2015 in Paris by all 193 United Nations
Member States, including all European countries, to be achieved by 203042. The United Nations
defines sustainable development as development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs within the planet's
physical boundaries. It is the guiding principle for balanced long-term global development
consisting of the three pillars of economic development, social development and
environmental protection, so that if any one pillar is weak then the system as a whole is
unsustainable43. The SDGs build directly on the eight predecessor Millennium Development
Goals (MDGs) covering poverty, gender, education, health, jobs and environmental
sustainability, but have for the first time added issues related to sustainable energy,
employment, infrastructure and cities and habitation.
Also unlike the MDGs, the SDGs focus specifically on governance issues (in SDGs 16 and 17),
and especially on good governance44, the use of new technologies by governments especially
for public service delivery, and building local and global partnerships and collaboration. A key
issue is the better use of human and natural resources through resource efficiency measures,
relating in particular to aspects of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (like the sharing,
collaborative and circular economies, and inclusive and frugal innovation), as well as the use of
emerging technologies in governance, for example in the context of open government and
government as a platform. Specific EU policies underline these aspirations, such as the Europe
2020 Strategy, the Juncker Agenda and Commissioner Moedas three openness priorities: open
science, open innovation and open to the world.
41
http://eurofed.stis.belspo.be/Downloads/Factsheet%20on%20Climate%20Action%20and%20Sustainable%20Deve
lopment%20in%20H2020.pdf
42
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/topics/sustainabledevelopmentgoals
43
http://www.un.org/en/ga/president/65/issues/sustdev.shtml (Accessed 16-11-14).
44
Good governance is characterised by the United Nations as governance which is effective, efficient, equitable,
transparent, accountable, responsive, participatory and inclusive: United Nations (2013) Governance, Public
Administration and Information Technology for Post-2015 Development, United Nations Department of Social and
Economic Affairs New York: http://workspace.unpan.org/sites/Internet/Documents/Governance_PA_Report.pdf
52
5.5.
As history shows, Europe has often suffered due to the lack of sufficient in-depth knowledge
concerning developments elsewhere in the world. This is necessary both to project European
influence and soft power, but also for the sake of mutual learning when most societal
challenges are global in extent and require international if not fully global collaboration. Some
important challenges for research and innovation actions in this context might include:
Examining how Europe can be fully open, both for participation from researchers and
innovators outside Europe and because purely European responses to global
challenges are unlikely to succeed. Diversity across Europe and transnational processes
should be emphasised in many topics.
Supporting strong partnerships with transnational actors, such as international
organisations like the G8 and G20.
A specific example might be social, cultural and economic cooperation between the EU
and the Eastern Partnership countries, as this should be deepened in order to
contribute to democratisation processes, to the development of markets for EU
companies, and to strengthen European security. In this context, the role of Russia, for
example on its border with the Ukraine, is causing unease. Other issues that could be
considered in this context are sharing best practices in research, development and
innovation management, as well as developing innovation strategies and the reform of
research and innovation systems.
Other countries which are very important for EU external policy include the USA, the
Mediterranean countries, India and Asia, especially China. The rise of Asia in
particular poses challenges and provides opportunities for Europe.
Given that Europe accounts for an increasingly smaller amount of global knowledge
production, it is important to ask whether some projects in some domains can really
be of excellent quality when no non-EU researchers and innovators are involved.
For example, in China there is much effort in the domains of strategic intelligence and
science policy, and in monitoring the activities of other countries in this area. This
should be an area in which the EU could strengthen its efforts.
How can Europe with its global partners increase the effectiveness of conflict
prevention as well as of peace and stability measures?
53
6.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Annex: Members of the H2020 SC6 Expert Advisory Group
Last and first names
Nationality
Gender
(F/M)
ADDARII Filippo
ALEXANDRINO PEREIRA MORGADO Carla Sofia
ANDERSEN Birgitte
ARNOLD David Vice Chair
ASHEIM Geir B.
BOGAERT Henri
EL MOUJABBER Maroun
ENKEL Ellen
FARGUES Philippe
GLIDDEN Julia
JASKUNIENE Egl
KOSONEN Riitta
LATOSZEK Ewa
MILLARD Jeremy - Rapporteur
OLIVEIRA Pedro
PET Andrea
PORTIER Philippe
PROHL Marga
SAHLIN Kerstin Chair
SAVIDAN Patrick
SIMON Judith
SMOLIKOVA Marta
STAVIK Jan
THALLER Manfred
TRUBETA Sevasti
URBANCZYK Przemyslaw
VAN DEN DOEL Wim
VERELLEN Franciscus
IT
PT
UK
UK
NO
BE
LB
DE
FR
US
LT
FI
PL
UK
PT
HU
FR
DE
SE
FR
DE
CZ
NO
AT
EL
PL
NL
FR
M
F
F
M
M
M
M
F
M
F
F
F
F
M
M
F
M
F
F
M
F
F
M
M
F
M
M
M
54

SC6 EAG Report 2018-2020

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SC6 EAG Report 2018-2020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Expert Advisory Group recommendations

on 2018-2020 Work Programme

Expert Advisory Group recommendations

Horizon 2020: Societal Challenge 6

Scope, process and acknowledgements

Governance for the future ........................................................................................ 35

Cross-cutting issues and synergies ............................................................................ 50

Annex: Members of the H2020 SC6 Expert Advisory Group ....................................... 54

Research and innovation for SC6

Participatory research and innovation

Three major themes have been identified

The human and social dynamics of the Fourth Industrial Revolution

Governance for the future

Five cross-cutting issues

Gender: The framing of gender in H2020 needs to be

Purpose of the report from the SC6 Expert Advisory Group

Research and innovation for SC6

An adequate understanding of how both European societies in particular, as well as human

Lessons of the past

Understanding human mobility

Migration drivers and dynamics

The culture of migrant communities

The current social system of the countries of origin.

Such an examination of the original cultures of the migrant populations needs to be

The culture of the receiving society

The importance of the trans-national mobility of cultural elites in the past, in

Migrations into the centres of industrial development, many of which created

The integration of whole communities, persecuted in their countries of origin, into a

2.4.3. Teaching to integrate

levels of the educational system to improve the understanding of Europe as a continental

Ethics and values

Human rights, for example as challenged by the spectre of death at EU borders as a

Issues of democracy, as currently understood and practiced in Europe, where there

Europe in the world and international collaboration

Although increasingly typified and regulated as a brain-drain of highly skilled

Civil actors (e.g. grassroots movements, local actors/societies, NGOs, etc.)

The human and social dynamics of the Fourth Industrial Revolution

Understanding the societal context of technological and economic development

the revolution in transport and communication, 1840-1870

Drivers and dynamics

The creative industries and cultural heritage

reasons blocking a multidisciplinary approach to innovations, especially concerning artistic

European cultural heritage as a driver of technical innovation

"Examples of subjects". Curriculumonline.gov.uk. 2009-04-20

the automatic reading of other classes of non-printed documents, with considerable

Industrial structure and externalities

Negative and positive outcomes

Ethics and values

Europe in the world and international collaboration

Governance for the future

Understanding governance for the future

Governance can be defined as the manner in which a community of interdependent actors is

European governance challenges and opportunities

See Edelman Trust Barometer http://www.edelman.com/insights/intellectual-property/2016-edelman-trustbarometer/

New challenges and opportunities for policy- and decision-making

Radicalisation and terrorism

Legal and regulatory frameworks

The digital transformation of governance

ICT-enabled public sector and open governance

Changing roles and relationships in European governance

Ethics and values

involvement of people in the formulation as well as implementation of European policies, on

Europe in the world and international collaboration